Posted on 02/17/2012 4:17:50 PM PST by wagglebee
Since this is a thread about evolution, and I had spelled out the term "Theory of Evolution" earlier, I thought it would be evident which of the 27 terms abbreviated by "ToE" (according to Acronym Finder I meant.
WHAT various elements of ToE?
The principle that evolution is a process of genetic change over time, and that those changes occur at a relatively steady rate. I use that principle when making comparisons of genes across species. For example, if I am interested in comparing an enzyme form and function between chickens, humans, mice, dolphins, turtles, and trout, and the only enzyme sequence I have on hand is mouse, my knowledge of the ToE tells me how I need to alter my search strategy for each species in order to have the best chance of success. To find the human gene, I may be able to use my knowledge of the mouse gene directly. But to find the trout gene, I'll have to make extensive comparisons of genes from other species in order to identify the parts of the enzyme that do not tolerate much variation, and then use that knowledge to design my search. How and to what extent genes differ between one species and another is predictable within the context of the ToE. "Creation science" has no such predictive properties (and, as such, is not a theory).
This Wiki article gives a pretty good description of how the ToE ties together various life sciences.
I just think Darwin's totally STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN: It classifies man as nothing other than a "clever animal" with "adaptive skill..."
Darwin's contribution to the ToE (which predates him) is the principle of natural selection--that (random) mutations conferring a survival/reproductive advantage tend to increase throughout a population. Other ToEs had proposed that organisms somehow change themselves to fit their environment, which is not the case. Giraffes did not elongate their necks so as to eat leaves from tall trees; giraffes with longer necks had the advantage of being able to eat leaves in tall trees and therefore they did not have to compete with the animals eating the lower leaves.
*snicker*
amd: Belief in fixed kinds is typical of Creationists, they believe in a “special” creation of fixed kinds rather than common descent of all species.
Spirited: Very, very true. Christian theists hold that “in the beginning God created man in His own image,” which means that man is the spiritual image bearer of the Triune God-—God the Spirit, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit or Ghost. And since God is a Triune God then it logically follows that His image-bearers are tripart beings: body (matter), heart (spirit, mind, conscience, reason) and soul.
Christian theists hold that man has never been anything other than what he was created by God to be. He has never been seaweed, a reptile, dog, bird, ape or ice cube on a hot summers’ day. Nor has he ever been androgynous after the fashion of certain lower-order creatures. He was never a female dog nor a dung beetle on a pile of dung. No, not ever.
The very ancient notion that man descended over long periods of time from a common lifeform belongs to the realm of monist superstious fantasy called metempsychosis and reincarnation. This is where we find man as dung beetle or female dog in a past life.
What very peculiarly strange times we are passing through. Today there exist two distinct kinds of humans. On one hand are the spritual-image bearers of God and on the other are souless, mindless, genderless genetic soup-mixes claiming that being ‘beingless’ is superior to being God’s spiritual-image bearers.
Hitler, besides believing in fixed kinds, also thought that only some humans (his own population group) were ‘the image bearers of God’ and that other humans were soulless and mindless.
Trying to make your case by comparing the demoniac Hitler to true Christians is entirely senseless.
Of course the underlying self-defeating reasoning goes like this: Hitler was an evil Christian therefore Christian salvation is worthless so why bother with Christianity?
I replied on this thread to the historic inaccuracy presented in the first paragraph - claiming Hitler was a “Darwinist” when it is obvious from his own words that he believed in fixed kinds and that only some people were actually created in the image of God - or the HIGHEST image of God.
You agreed that belief in fixed kinds was true of Creationists - then went on to say that you thought only SOME humans were ‘the image of God’. I found that amusing after so many tried to make the case that only “Darwinists” could think some people were less than fully human - then you chime in and you apparently think that some people are not in the image of God, soulless and mindless. Interesting.
It was the author of this tripe who tried to make the case via guilt by association with Hitler - and the author had to lie to make that case.
The argument went somewhat like this: Hitler was an evil “Darwinist” therefore Darwin's theory is worthless and evil and will make you like Hitler.
That is an illogical guilt by association and an appeal to consequences argument.
We Christians believe that God become enfleshed in the body of a virgin, was born, made water into wine, the blind to see, healed the sick, raised the dead, etc. - died as the propitiation for our sins, resurrected on the third day, awaits in heaven and will come again. We believe that every thing that was made, was made by Him and for Him.
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. - Revelation 4:11
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. - John 1:1-3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. - Hebrews 11:3
All more than ironic from someone who claims to be a Christian himself.
If you are a Christian, then why don't you believe the Bible that God wrote?
The Pope is a Christian, and he accepts the theory of evolution. Would you claim that he also doesn’t believe in the Bible that God wrote? Do you think the Pope isn’t a Christian?
No different than I, discussing the merits of your indiscriminate use of the term “Creationist.” So why, then, have you been warned (twice)?
“Your post to me was all about what you thought of me.”
If it’s not about you, then stop talking about you. And it’s no less true that your posts to me are all about what you think of me (and mind reading, and implying motives, etc).
“Racism and Creationism are frequent ideological bedfellows”
Yeah, and Josef Mengele and the men who conducted the Tuskegee syphilis experiment where scientists. So, what? (and you have the nerve to complain of guilt by association). Following your lead, I am obliged to observe it’s not the person who is idiotic, it’s the “guilt by association” argument, wrongly applied, that is idiotic.
“one not need be a “Darwinist” to be a racist”
Even less so is a Christian (or a Jew) racist.
Illustrative of the principle of guilt by association, of which you complain so plaintively but indulge in so enthusiastically, we can describe Darwinism as a philosophy masquerading as a scientific theory dealing with ‘the origin of life,’ which serves as a ‘universal acid’ that ‘dissolves all traditional religious and moral beliefs,’ and establishes that ‘1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.’
The above description is a brief composite of the on record remarks of eminent scientists, acclaimed for their accomplishments, and enthusiastically endorsed by large numbers of their students and colleagues, not of Hitler nor of other murderers who use “Eugenics” as justification for their crimes.
“Other than your same little dance over definitions.”
The object of definition is to facilitate communication. What is your complaint? Do you oppose the facilitation of communication?
“Creationism: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution 4b”
Not all that bad as a definition but . . . philosophically, what’s wrong with this definition? Scientifically, what’s wrong with this definition?
I know of no Christian who does not, as an article of faith, believe that God created Mankind and the universe. Do you?
You agreed that belief in fixed kinds was true of Creationists - then went on to say that you thought only SOME humans were ‘the image of God’. I found that amusing after so many tried to make the case that only “Darwinists”
Spirited: Comprehension is a dying discipline it seems, as made clear by your woeful misreading of my statements.
All men are endowed by our transcendent Creator with free will. Herein lies the meaning-—and the sarcasm-—behind my observation, re the two distinct kinds of humans, meaning that the mindless, soulless, genderless genetic stew kind have utilized their free will to reduce themselves to nonbeings at the mercy of natural forces.
It is their decision, amd, to annihilate self—to be nothing. Evolutionism exists for a purpose. It is there for all who prefer nothingness to submission to our Lord.
But upon death their souls will not be annihilated. No, souls are immortal. For such souls there is hell.
The result of your same repetitive ad nauseum I have heard it a hundred times before little dance over definition is not to facilitate communication - as those that inhabit “Crevo” threads know exactly what is meant by “Creationist” and that I am not one by that commonly accepted and well understood meaning of that easily communicated word.
Supposing that physical means cause physical phenomena leads to further discovery and useful innovation because such means are understandable predictable and replicable.
Supposing that supernatural means cause physical phenomena leads to no further discovery and to zero useful innovation because such means are not understandable predictable or replicable.
That is why Science is of use, while Creationism is useless.
Do you think the Pope prefers nothingness to submission to our Lord?
Do you think that for such souls as his, that accept evolution, there is hell?
Are you capable of arguing against a scientific theory without condemning those who don’t agree with you to hell?
“I suspect some Christians who accept common descent haven’t really thought it through very well.”
Spirited: Exactly. If common descent is true then death predates Adam and Eve, making God Himself responsible for death and suffering. And if God is so obviously cruel and merciless then man must look to himself for salvation.
Only our Lord is infallible, Popes are not. They are human. They make mistakes.
What I asked was if he was condemned to Hell for acceptance of evolution and preferred nothingness to submission to our Lord.
I also wondered if you were capable of arguing against a scientific theory without condemning those who disagree with you to hell.
“What I asked was if he was condemned to Hell for acceptance of evolution and preferred nothingness to submission to our Lord.”
Spirited: The Pope is fallible, but his will is in submission to our Lord. Our Lord is bigger than our weaknesses. He does not judge as men do, for which we can be thankful.
Amd: I also wondered if you were capable of arguing against a scientific theory without condemning those who disagree with you to hell.
Spirited: Such questions are deceptive tactics with but one purpose: to shut down further discussion by casting shame upon the one questioned.
That is my response to you and your so-called question.
It is hardly a deceptive tactic for me to point out that it is a common argument of Creationists to claim that any who don't accept what they believe about the natural world....
doesn't believe the Bible
only “claims” to be a Christian
Prefers nothingness to submission to our Lord
And for such souls there is Hell.
Now why is it that so many Creationists cannot make an argument against a scientific theory without a blatant lie (as the author of this article started with) or attacking the religious beliefs of those who disagree with them and condemn them to hell?
Which brings to mind Christ’s admonition to seek out the lost sheep of the flock. Doubly difficult when the lost is grimly determined to remain lost.
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.