Posted on 05/20/2002 12:53:27 PM PDT by rpage3
See source for details....
It's not just you. Gore3000 screwed up his HTML and left everything blue.
I thank him for his contributions to science, but he probably deserves to roast in hell for that alone.
The end result for a human being is to survive long enough to ensure his genes get passed along. Working with a group increases the chances of this happening. Going one's own way (being selfish) stresses the group, reducing the group's chances of survival and consequently reducing the individual's chances of survival. Groups which enforce the survival of the group over the survival of the individual (either through law, religion or tradition, or simply through force -- though the latter can be counterproductive in the long run) increase their odds of survival versus groups that do not. In other words, morality among humans is a trait "selected for" because it promotes survival.
Ah, but what mechanism did God use?
This is not a personal attack. This comment is about the content of your postings. Yours are the most hate-filled comments I've ever seen. And I've seen a lot.
That's not a question, that's an insult. That Gould is a bad example for any Christian is beyond doubt. That he did a lot of damage by misleading others into atheism is also beyond doubt. That he sold his soul and the truth for fame and fortune is also beyond doubt.
You need to respond to the issues instead of insulting people. Darwin was a total phony as I said. He kept changing his story about the cause of evolution throughout his works. First selection, then sex, at times gradual at times non-gradual. He was no scientist, he was a charlatan. Half his works are just excuses 'but we do not know enough now to back this up', 'but we have not found the fossils', 'but we need to believe in the theory and ignore the evidence' and such imbecilities.
Seems pretty clear that morality is not your choice. Pretty sad, because even here on earth you will not find fullfillment.
So Gould was an evolutionary failure? His own god hated him?
The Christian Spirit yields a far more profound insight into the end result for a human being.
That insight isn't acquired by science, but by faith. If you don' have that faith, you lack His Spirit, and you are not His.
Guess you do not read your own! Just as well, nothing worthwhile in them.
Men who have never tasted of the Spirit are the least authoritative people to ask about the Spirit, don't you think?
You might as well ask a dog--even a very smart dog--resting on a porch in Mississippi its opinions about the art treausures of the Louvre.
And what contribution would that be? A theory which is totally unsupportable by any evidence? A phony theory which is just an excuse for not having evidence?
Huh? He lived to breeding age. That he chose not to breed was an individual decision. You obviously hold the erroneous notion that evolution requires one to be a slave to one's passions or instincts.
How empty your philosophy is!
It's a personal thing. It was meant to show that Christians have a common fallacy of thinking atheists go to their deaths scared of nothingness, sorry they have no god. In fact, many such as Asimov are thankful for not having an intervening spirit.
What are you guys talking about? His obit in today's NY Times says he has two sons from his first marriage...
Unlike you, jennyp is at least faithful to Gould's materialist vision and strictly limited (though admittedly great)intelligence and understanding.
Make up your own double-mind. Bring it into focus, man. You claim to be Christian. Do you possess the Christian Spirit or do you not? What does the Spirit tell you?
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.