Posted on 11/21/2011 9:46:01 AM PST by SeanG200
A new audio added to my mix of videos in regards to evolutionary ethics and rape. Richard Dawkins in an honest moment.
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
Dawkins “masterpiece” is not empiricism but Science Fiction Mythology. Dawkins has cleverly spun a scientistic tale about deified Life, magic(Life’s several powers breathed into a few forms), Life’s “creative power”-—evolution and above all, Dawkins religiously held “belief” in the “inventions of his own imagination:”
Imagine There’s No God.....Only Evolution
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2787047/posts
Those who debunk supernaturalism invariably substitute something similarly transcendent, as Dawkins has done.
As for belief, Dawkins obviously “believes” his own inventions else he’d not publish them for the edification of his followers.
I was quoting the master himself, Charles Darwin.
And ... You should know that Darwin’s theory has been brilliantly reinforced -- updated -- based on modern technology. That new book is titled “Darwin’s Ghost”... by Steve Jones.
“I was quoting the master himself, Charles Darwin.”
It’s commonly believed that Darwin discovered the “law” of evolution. He did not. Evolution predates Darwin by thousands of years.
Contemporary anthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, longtime director of the American Museum of Natural History traced evolution to ancient Greece. Osborn said:
“When I began the search for (the roots of) evolutionary theory...I was led back to the Greek natural philosophers and I was astonished to find how many of the pronounced and basic features of the Darwinian theory were anticipated...as far back as the seventh century B.C.” (The Long War Against God, Henry Morris,p. 216)
Greece inherited its evolutionary cosmogony from ancient Babylonia and Egypt. This means that in light of the fact that Darwinism hales from Greece and Greeces cosmogony hales from Babylonia, modern evolutionary naturalists have been teaching a revamped, revised version of ancient Greek and Babylonian cosmogony.
Thus “modern” evolution evolved from the Babylonian/Egyptian spiritual concept that describes the transmigration of a divine spark or bit of soul over time and in many different bodies to a mechanism that causes life to incrementally change over time in many different bodies.
In its spiritual pantheist conception, everything is god while in its Darwinian secular-materialist conception, nothing is God since He has been explained away. Each in its own way however, deifies man.
Page 298 of Jones’ book ("Darwin’s Ghost") states … “The Origin makes no mention of “evolution,” a word whose sense has gone full circle since it began. As Cicero so memorably put it: Quid poetarum evolution voluptatis affert” -- “What pleasure does the reading of the poets provide!” The word was first used in biology to describe the changes in shape of an embryo as it developed. Not until much later did “evolution” begin to suggest the gradual transformation of one form into another.”
I could go on, but ….
LOLOL! Thanks for the ping, dear YHAOS!
“The word was first used in biology to describe the changes in shape of an embryo as it developed. Not until much later did “evolution” begin to suggest the gradual transformation of one form into another.”
Spirited: The word was most definitely used to describe the spiritual evolution of the Sun-god Ra. Upon translating an ancient Egyptian papyri, Egyptologist Wallace Budge discovered it to be an evolutionary cosmogony entitled “The Book of Knowing the Evolutions of Ra.”
Ra describes himself as evolving out of Nu-—primordial matter.
The much older Enuma Elish is a similar evolutionary cosmogony.
Fundamentally, there are only two cosmogonies: evolution of life from death (primordial matter) and special creation of life from Life-—God the Father Almighty.
To choose the evolutionary cosmogony is to choose death. To choose special creation is to choose life. Thus Jesus said, “Choose life that you may live.”
What is the purpose of conflating evolution with abiogenesis?
So Wallace Budge translating some ancient symbols, chose the word "evolution" to be the English language equivalent of those symbols, and you interpret this as proof the ancient Egyptions used the word "evolution".
If we aren't any better than that at analyzing political claims, we're screwed.
“What is the purpose of conflating evolution with abiogenesis?”
Abiogenesis is the study of how biological life supposedly evolved and/or emerged from inorganic (dead) matter through natural processes. In other words, life comes from death.
Dead matter speaks of the “what.” Evolution speaks of the mechanical “how.”
Life is a pre-condition of the theory evolution. There is nothing in that theory that is applicable to inorganic (dead) matter. That is purely the realm of abiogenesis.
What is the purpose of conflating evolution and abiogenesis?
You have it wrong. If we are incapable of identifying, analyzing and protecting ourselves from corrupt worldviews then this nation is lost, for it was not founded on scientistic myths claiming that life comes from death but on the self-evident truths and principles found only in the Bible.
There is no salvation in creative semantics.
“Life is a pre-condition of the theory evolution”
Spirited: Spare us the equivocations. All evolutionists of Darwin’s time recognized that Darwin’s “pre-condition” resulted from his inability to account for life. Therefore they marched under the banner of “spontaneous generation,” which simply means that life spontaneously (magically) generated itself from nothing-—life emerged from death, in other words.
Do you really think you're going to convince people using an argument based on the premise that you can read the minds of people who've been dead for decades?
What is the purpose of conflating abiogenesis and evolution?
You obviously understand the difference, yet choose to continue to argue as if there isn't one.
As a materialist, physicalist, darwinist it seems to me that the question you ask regarding 'purpose' seems unintelligible, because the evolutionist states, Dawkins states, that evolution is due to purposeless changes, undirected in nature.Dawkins makes clear that these processes a blind, pitiless, and pointless. So as a devotee of Dawkins your question seemss senseless. If all is matter and energy, and there is no timeless, transcendent purposeful God, even if the question could approach logic from an atheist, why would it matter if there is, or is not, a purpose.
The reflex for the materialist to put the question of abiogenesis apart from the quesitons of the metaphysical belief in evolution is a preemptive attempt to avoid the hard question. Abiogeneis, which science has repeatedly disproved as possible, is the supreme problem for the materialist darwinist, and one which they know is inexplicable in a physicialist worldview, thus the attempt to innoculate themselves from having to address that elephant in the darwinian discussion room.
In a discussion of semantics, where words have specific meanings it is important to maintain the distinctions for the discussion to be coherent.
Can the argument against atheism not tolerate maintaining those distinctions?
I would ask you the quesiton, in a discussion of semantics (rather than a discussion of the evolution of life and living organisms) why the evolutionist seeks to avoid a beginning of the subject...first life....giving rise to the next, then the next, then the next, as the metaphysics declare? Well rather than making the artificial distinction to create a zone of comfort for having no answer to my question....answer the question. You and I know that the evolutionist has no answer. They ascribe First Life a a miracle, an artlcle of faith, which, at best they prognosticate will, at some later date, science will provide an orderly, atheistic, physicalist answer. I simply don't have enough faith to be be an atheist. And I do not have the hubris, as organized science does, to proclaim the parameters of legitimate debate and make the proclaimation that 'science' deals in objective, emperic truth and theism deals in subjective metaphysics....those are our rules...and you cannot, and we will not accept, questions outside the parameters of what we say are the parameters.....get used to it....we will accept only questions we want to answer. So, in answer to your first question the purpose of darwinism seems to be to pursuade the public there is no purposeful, meaningful intelligence which transcends the natural world, which implies two important limitations on those who require consistency from the naturalists, science inquiry. First, it precludes inquiry as to all possibilities to explain the phenomenon, restricting only to naturalism as explicative. And, second, naturalists may not falsify elements of darwinism until and unless they provide a scientific alternative. This is required at all times because they must have a unified theory at their disposal to prevent any rival philosophical explaination to prevent the establishing a toehold on science. Thus the idiocy of punctuated equilibrium, panspermia, and others to be seriously considered under the imprimateur of science....yes, yes, that's right....the aliens did it. And so it goes. No explaination for the origin of the universe. No explaination for first life. No explaination for consciousness. No explaination for any universal,varient, abstract entity...because they were not 'preconfigured' by the evolution, not only of life, but of the universe. So, cornered with a question from a theist, (from wence did first life come), the evolutionist screeches...TIME OUT! KINGS X! FOUL BALL!....Those question are off limits. Those questions are unfair. Those questions will not be tolerated. Yet in the materialist worldview 'fairness' does not, cannot, exist. There is not objective right or wrong. 'Ought' has no meaning in the materialist world.
Metaphysical darwinism is an idea which cannot allow its own metaphysical reality, so, the darwinist denies it as a philosophical entity, claims victory in its error, and says to all who would question its validity...you may not ask, and we will not answer your questions which we cannot answer, which we wish not to entertain as existing in our exclusive scientifically self described domain....In the words of the famous Samual B. Goldwin.....'those questions are included OUT!' Science will allow what we will allow!!!! and all others need not apply!
To quote Stephen Gould, "Science and religion are separate but equal in importance. because science treats factual reality and religion struggles with human morality". That is a summation of natualistic metaphysics in a nutshell. The power to define terms such as 'factual reality' makes it intolerable to ask question which science says does not reside in that domain....and therefore we (darwinist, materialist,physicalist,evolutionist science) refuse to address such nonsence, or if we stoop to address it, we will do it with derision, sarcasm, and impudence...."You are asking questions outside the realm of factual reality and your question is therefore meaningless". Kind of like the aid to president clinton,Paul Begala..."Stroke of the pen,...law of the land....cool". Well, our questions will not go away. Our desire to understand Truth will not recede. Our inquiries will continue to press the notions which theist find fundamental to understanding that truth and simply ask the materialist step outside of their self prescribed reality to consider our questions.
“Idealism offends the senses, materialism offends the soul; the one explains everything but the world, the other everything but life. To merge these half-truths it was necessary to find some dynamic principle that could mediate between structure and growth, between things and thought. Anaxagoras sought such a principle in a cosmic mind; Empedocles sought it in the inherent forces that made for evolution.”
I'm afraid I will need a little more context to answer this question. Where exactly was the word "PURPOSE" ascribed to anything Dawkins said?
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.