Evolution is a hope started by a man who even admitted it was false . I voted for Creationism being the John Ashcroft Ultra-Conservative that I am.
Actually it is doubtful that Darwin ever converted to Christianity. There is one lady who says she converted Darwin on his deathbid and that he renounced evolution. His family, however, denies it and there is no shred of evidence from any of his writings or speeches that he even thought of conversion. So, while it may have happened, there is much doubt about the story. And, even if it were true, it would mean nothing about the truthfulness of evolution. If Newton had renounced integral calculus on his deathbed, it wouldn't change the fact that the indefinite integral of x^2 is (x^3)/3.
It was rather a long article so I skimmed it but it seemed to me like he was saying he doesn't like evolution b/c it can be applied to social structures and we have social darwinism. In doing so he indicts a major scientific theory because some people misuse it. That is nonsense to me. It also doesn't answer my question to you: do you think, as a creationist, that all people are created equal? How about in comparison to the differences in people as a result of evolution? I just really don't understand how you can have a problem with the "conflict" between all people being equal as a result of evolution or creation...
Yeah like the ones that play for the Yankees instead of the Red Sox.* And I voted for both. *and I hate the Yankees.
I'm a little confused by the "other" or "both" category...maybe someone can explain... By "both" or "other", does you mean that life was Created, then continued to evolve afterwards? Wouldn't that still be Creationism, then? Seems to me Creationism means that "life" (as opposed to "living things") was created, which includes the ability to reproduce, mutate, and thus "evolve". Hmmmmm....what do you think? x34 BTW, I voted for "Creationism"
I didn't know there were so many creationists that knew how to use the internet... I understand the "God created life originally, and it evolved, perspective..." that's fine. But the Jerry Falwell "dinosaur bones were put there by Satan to confuse us" perspective is absurd and runs counter to all we know about the world. Even theologically, such logic is dubious. Most prominent theologians, modern like Rahner or medieval like Aquinas... have argued that God made the world deciperable to human reason. Otherwise, you're left with solipcism. Hell, Descartes claimed that the internal logic of the world was absolutely essential in order to know *anything*. And if you buy that much... I don't see much of a choice but to believe in *some* level of evolution.
indefinite integral of X^2 is (X^3)/3 + C if I'm not getting it confused with the definite one. My Calc teacher said +C like a certain cat.
LOL! I wished that I had caught that. My Calc II teacher in college was this old woman who could be like your grandmother outside of class, but a holy terror in the classroom. If you forgot something like a "+ C", she would tear you a new *******!
I had issues with both because I wanted to believe in both. Try to find that in a book... I did eventually. Of course, I'm not saying this marries the Bible and On The Origin of Species RR
Originally from Dylan I apologize to you, Dylan, for always trying to continue these discussions over the weekend. I think I've done this like twice before where I never respond to your questions. (I work 1/2 days Friday and don't usually check the bb till Monday.) [back on topic] Your right one statement seems scientific, while the other seems purely political. But the factor that can link these two concepts together is the belief in God. The term "godless evolution" implies there is no God. (Granted, some would put forth scenarios where God exists but did not have a hand in our development. I challenge those people to first know God, then reconfirm their argument.) Of course all men are not biologically created equally in physical terms. But the statement "all men are created equal" implies that all men are equal in one aspect, namely unalienable rights. And as Mr. Keyes has pointed out, no one is deserving of those rights if there was no God to base justice on. Thus, this statement implies God exists. (I'm sure many will disagree that having rights does not necessarily follow the need of the existence of God, but that's another discussion. The view of our founding fathers who made this statement is in harmony with my own.) As far as your question pertaining to evolution, I'm not sure which of the three divergent theories that explain evolution you're refering to. My faith is in God, and if that's the way He used, then amen.
We see evolution in front of us all the time. In England, there were two kinds of moths. Dark ones and light ones. The light ones easily blended in with the trees cause they were light, but with the industrial revolution going on in England, the soot from the factories turned the trees dark, so then the dark moths could easily blend in with the trees. But um, okay then. my vote goes with evolution. One day, some beyond super being decided to make people and put them on this earth and do fun stuff, and play basketball. orrr.... Water melted, an algea and all this crap, and chemical reacions and then the cells more complex, then give or takea few billion years, you get animals that breath, eat, reproduce. Some of the things that get evolved don't work out. Hence they die. Ooot
Evolution here. I just wish everybody would stop trying to tell me to believe differently because I'm going to believe what I want to believe damn it!
I think it's already been decided. Once haven posts, no one else need post, because he's automatically right. Logically, if haven is always right, anyone else that follows, must obviously be wrong. Thus is the idea behind logic. "Otherwise, you're left with solipcism."..... LOL. Classic.
haven: Even theologically, such logic is dubious. Most prominent theologians, modern like Rahner or medieval like Aquinas... have argued that God made the world deciperable to human reason. Otherwise, you're left with solipcism. Hell, Descartes claimed that the internal logic of the world was absolutely essential in order to know *anything*. And if you buy that much... I don't see much of a choice but to believe in *some* level of evolution. I'll differ with you on this. I agree with your point that the world must be largely decipherable, but I would say that if you believe in creation to some degree, evolution becomes pointless. I don't have all my references lined up, so I'll pull this off the top of my head. Much of it is intuitive anyway. There is very little evidence that anything has ever evolved, as in "moved up the food chain." Adaptations and mutation are common enough, but they are either lateral moves or downward moves. The moths of London that we all learn about in school changed colour by natural selection, but they never became anything other than moths. They didn't become more advanced creatures. They just changed colour. The argument to this is that the change takes place over a very long period of time, but this doesn't really hold up. The amount of time it would take for the first simple cells to evolve into what is represented in the world today is astronomical, and there is no convincing evidence that it has occurred at all. Our world consists of relatively discrete species, when compared to the continuum of development that evolution would suggest. If my memory serves me correctly, scientists have not once in recorded history been able to point to an instance where a species has become more complex, as in evolve. So if you believe in some form of creation (and there are a number of different roads to that conclusion/conviction), it makes the most sense, IMHO, to say that God created the species that exist, and have existed, and world history has unfolded from there, with some species becoming extinct and others becoming dominant. And there has likely been a fair bit of adaptation too. So why was evolution popularised? The theory of evolution was largely promoted to refute creation, and as such has much political baggage and lack of objectivity attached to it. If you are denying God, you have to come up with some theory to explain why we are here. This may have also been a reaction to the largely corrupt power of the Church at the time and since, and to some of the more narrow-minded creationists. The theory that the bible shows that the world is 6000 years old, or whatever the number is, seems unconvincing to me, and the fear of looking at what objective science is telling us is puzzling to me. If creation is true, and I believe it is, it will stand up to the test.
Hey Grizzled were you in my Organic Chemistry II class and lab last semester. Because you almost just said the exact same thing (we've never seen anything actually evolve) he said when we had a big evolution talk before lab (and during and after, it just wouldn't end). And lmao TheFreak.
I took organic chem several years ago at the University of Calgary, so no it wasn't me. It's come up in discussions I've had with biological science people too, though.
Evolution and Creationism, true literal Creationism, are mutually exclusive, aren't they? Evolution and a belief in God, however, are not mutually exclusive. (voted for evolution)
