Some one just accused me of making a personal attack on them because I said they are ignorant of certain facts. Any one who has interacted with me here will know I try not to make personal attacks, other than to make fun of people, and these threads are littered with snipped personal attacks on me
So, I thought it would be a good idea to start a thread which will hopefully help those who are ignorant of the theories of Darwin and evolution. By no means am I a scientist, but I will do my best to help those who see these theories as a "personal attack," on their belief system to understand them more fully.
I will not attempt to explain the theory of the big bang, because, as I have said before, I do not fully understand the scientific basis for this theory. If some one could introduce me to a Quark, I might change that stance
But I do not think the fact that evolution has no answer for "how it all began," is a valid reason for dismissing it out of hand.
I also do not believe that evolution in any way proves the bible is wrong. It proves it is not to be taken literally, but that is it. It certainly had no bearing on my personal conclusion that there is not a personal god.
I will be using other people's words also. And I am sure this will be a fertile breeding ground for Jenny's anti-evolution hall of fame
The first thing one needs to understand is that these are theories, and as such are scientific knowledge, i.e. that which has been postulated, tested and not yet falsified'
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,"
This is the basis of Darwin's theory:
1. Species have great fertility. They have more offspring than can grow to adulthood.
2. Populations remain roughly the same size, with small changes.
3. Food resources are limited, but are relatively stable over time.
4. An implicit struggle for survival ensues.
5. In sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical.
6. Some of these variations directly impact the ability of an individual to survive in a given environment.
7. Much of this variation is inheritable.
8. Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce, while individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce.
9. The individuals that survive are most likely to leave their inheritable traits to future generations.
10. This slowly effected process results in populations that adapt to the environment over time, and ultimately, after interminable generations, these variations accumulate to form new varieties, and ultimately, new species.
More information on Darwin, his theory and the adverse reaction it caused are here:
As you can see from the following image, many "personal attacks," were made on Darwin after the publication of his book.
It is fair to say that Darwin's theory is the starting poiint for our understanding of the evolutionary process.
The next piece of the puzzle, before reaching evolution,
Genetic or "allelic" drift is a completely separate process from natural selection, but helps in our understanding of evolution.
Genetic drift is the evolutionary process of change in the allele frequencies (or gene frequencies) of a population from one generation to the next due to the phenomena of probability in which purely chance events determine which alleles (variants of a gene) within a reproductive population will be carried forward while others disappear. Especially in the case of small populations, the statistical effect of sampling error during random sampling of certain alleles from the overall population may result in an allele, and the biological traits that it confers, to become more common or rare over successive generations, and result in evolutionary change over time. The concept was first introduced by Sewall Wright in the 1920s, and is now held to be one of the primary mechanisms of biological evolution. It is distinct from natural selection, a non-random evolutionary selection process in which the tendency of alleles to become more or less widespread in a population over time is due to the alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive success.\
This is an attempt to show the process graphically, and there is more information and images here
Which leads us to:
Less we become confused and include other definitions of evolution, I will henceforth use the word "evolution," as it applies in biology, which is defined as:
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
Or as wikipedia describes it:
"In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. The genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits in individuals, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms, but new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are produced by genetic recombination, which can increase the variation in traits between organisms. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population."
Or in more simple terms:
"Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how and why evolution occurs. An organism inherits features (called traits) from its parents through genes. Changes (called mutations) in these genes can produce a new trait in the offspring of an organism. If a new trait makes these offspring better suited to their environment, they will be more successful at surviving and reproducing. This process is called natural selection, and it causes useful traits to become more common. Over many generations, a population can acquire so many new traits that it becomes a new species."
Much like the fact that one line of the bible does not exist in a vacuum and is interrelated with all the other lines in the bible, evolutionary biology does not exist in a vacuum. There are numerous other theories and evidences that combine with, and interact with it to give us a greater understanding of the way the world works.
A few examples would be:
All these links are to recognized academic bodies, and I have tried to find the mopst understandable information I can.
For a fuller explanation of the theory, and if you are interested in educating your children at home about the process, I understand this is an excellent book.
Ongoing testing of the theories
These theories are being tested, have been tested, and will continue to be tested. This is what scientists do. One such test here
More testing is here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v2 … 197a0.html
And for an explanation of why the fact that evolution is "just a theory," does not mean it is invalid or should be dismissed. Go here - Evolution is just a theory
"The important thing to keep in mind is that the everyday definition of the word "theory" is different from its scientific definition. In common usage, theory often means something like "guess" or "hunch". However, in scientific circles, this is not the case. To scientists, a theory is an explanation of some feature of the world that meets three requirements: it is supported by evidence, is testable and falsifiable, and can be used to make predictions."
And no, I have not added any links to all the pseudo-scientific sites that have sprung up. My personal feelings on people offering that sort of information is that I am torn between feeling sorry for them and ..........
For my own part, I do not see the theory of evolution as in any way "proving," the bible wrong. It played no part in my conclusion that there is no such thing as a god.
Yes, it is a theory. And to some one such as myself, it is a theory that actually makes sense.
This is one of my personal litmus tests. "Does it make sense?"
I accept that if one takes the bible as a literal TRUTH, then of course it will not make any sense. If you already have all the "facts," you need by reading your bible, then I have wasted my breath.
But if you are interested in learning about the facts and tests and observations that have caused scientists to postulate these theories, knock yourself out. Glad to be of assistance.
Let the games begin
Hey one of the Chimps has boobies What are you trying to say...
That men and women are both descended from apes. Not just men?
that one was able to breed with itself and nurse its young.
I am going to break this picture down from left to right, so if I say "the third monkey" that is the third monkey from the left.
The first monkey is actually a chimp. However, it has the back jaw structure of a human. No fossile evidence. beleive me, I've dug(archeology). It was also said for many many many years that man evolved from a chimp. However- chimps are still here but monkeys 1 through 5 are not?
Monkey #2 is sexually confused and may or may not have a penis. This is the evolution of man. Now the artist led you to believe that the right leg of monkey #2 may or may not be covering a penis, but it was no mistake. Look at monkey #3. It does have boobs- as noticed by Sandra. Now the arm covers the area and one is left to wonder if monkey #3 is able to impregnate itself and nurture the baby monkey it made? Monkey #4. same thing, but now the boobs are gone. Monkey #4 was also interesting because it was not wise enough to use a sharp tool like monkey #5. your ancestor was basically that stupid. Thank God for millions of years because if you wanted to kill something, you would have to use a rounded river rock. Wow. Monkey #5 made that tool he is holding. I say he because the penis is visible. You can tell that he made it by the small chip marks(chirting) and the uniform shape. He is smart enough to make tools. However, in evolution theory the oldest tools are made around 40K years ago. He can't be that old because there is no fossile evidence for him. Only artistic renditions such as this- oh and that has been gathered from sloth teeth(OOOPS GUYS) <--- fact. Monkey #6 isn't really a monkey at all. That is man and we have fossile record of him diversified from sloths and other primates that are supposed to be part of the linkage. The monkey #7 is to really draw the whole picture together for an awe inspiring grand finale of those who enjoy the false religion and cheap majic shows.
Bumping this one up for the same scripturebots
I will give you credit for explaining what a scientific theory is. In all the time I've discussed, questioned, and asked about evolution, you are exactly the second person to explain it, and yours was a much better explanation.
As a Christian and a history buff, I have to say that I don't think you really understand the idea of the "chosen people" in the Bible. It points out often that God chose the Jews specifically because they were a small and weak group, in order to show His power, not because they were in any way 'naturally superior.' If that had been the design, He would have chosen the Egyptians or Assyrians.
Yeah, the church did a lot of bad things. I've never said otherwise. But to point that out as some kind of counterweight to the Christian problem with evolution is to miss the point. In a way, it kind of makes the point because when the church gets that big, it stops being Christian and starts being just another man-made government. Not the first, by the way, to claim that a god or gods had ordained it. This, by the way, was the major argument for Protestantism. When people cite "the church" they are usually referring to the medieval catholic church.
I still have a lot of questions, but this was a good starting point!
I understand just fine thanks. It is garbage. We already know the Hebrew enslavement was a lie with no basis in reality and there is no such thing as a god. This is nothing at all to do with "history" - if you were a genuine history buff - you would understand this.
I never did that.
Glad to hear. Odd you have questions - I thought I had covered it pretty well.
You covered basics extremely well.
I was also reacting to other comments in the forum. That's why I said "people" and not "you." In the future, I will try to be more clear.
"We" do NOT know there is not God. You may know it just fine, but I don't. So no, my grasp of history is fine, thank you. Even if there was no enslavement, the other acts recorded in the Bible, such as the historical existence of the kingdom of Israel, the kingship of David, and the Diaspora, are historically true and well attested to by pottery and other things. I was pointing out that comparing the Biblical idea of the Chosen People to the not-Biblical idea of "survival of the fittest" was not correct, the two don't correlate.
Great hub Mark!
This is a topic which I´ll follow attentively and I´m sure I´ll LOL with some of the following posts .
Come on Mark you just have to add Erich von Däniken theories into this mix. If he is to be believed in any way shape or form his "God-like" beings must play a big role in how humanity has 'evolved' in the last 3000 or so odd years. I usually stay out of religious debates because I have my own take on things and they do include a God. But your awesome post just begged for a comment.
(Question: why would you put all this great work into forum posting and not into a super duper hub?)
I sure miss your regular snarkies around hubpages...
I hope you are not suggesting that Mr. Daniken's theories are of equal weight ?
I don't blame you for staying out of religious debates. That is a matter between you and your god. Unless you think everyone else should believe the same things that you do
And as for making a forum post rather than a hub, I would think I would miss my target audience if I had done so.
Jenny - Gotta love Stargate.
I don't know that science has been able to find much supporting evidence yet that the Ancient Egyptian gods were actually aliens - although the notion did spawn the mildly amusing Sci Fi series, Stargate, which takes itself not seriously at all.
Science and religion are two different things.Science is full of theories but we see a few laws in the biological sciences.However science may help to understand nature and its laws in some ways.A theory can be true or be proved false later.
I think I need to read the evolutionary theory test links before responsing.
for now , as I am one of your audience Mark, I think that evolution as the only chance for atheism must not be taught as a science but a theory.
neither false nor true, teaching evolution should be so biased.
and it is the same thing for religions.
people should listen to each sides equally.
and let the games begin as you say.
I hope God or chance will help me here writting in English.
My pleasure Eng.M
Although I have to say, evolution has never been taught as anything other than a scientific theory.
And my atheism has nothing to do with it. The one does not preclude or prove the other
I have always attempted to see past your lack of English, and I hope you receive the help you ask for.
Don't think one can deny evolutionary changes, like humans that eat a lot of protein tend to become taller over generations, such as we are seeing now. Noticed hiking in Lassen Volcanic National Park, a landscape destroyed 'Starting in May 1914 and lasting until 1921, a series of minor to major eruptions occurred on Lassen.', that the trees there as only 70 years old, seemed to
do a lot of experimenting, with varying growth forms. What I would like to know: is there ever a change or evolution, from one species to another, that has been proven scientifically? If so I have never seen it. This seems to be the crux for most people.
Mark are you saying that you want to just disgust Darwin's hypothesis "On the Origin of Species" and not all the other hypothesis that it has spawned, like the big bang hypothesis, the black holes hypothesis or "Survival of the fittest"?
The reason why I ask is because when evolution is talked about all of these hypothesis are taken into account.
"Survival of the fittest" is a scary notion in itself because before and around the turn of the 20th century some races considered themselves superior to other races (examples - English, German and French). Some still do because of "Survival of the fittest". Some scholars contend that "Survival of the fittest" has lead to predatory corporations or groups that think they are superior (like the Arian nation, neo-nazi groups and even Jewish supremacy groups like Zionism). Zionism was founded just after Darwin's "Survival of the fittest".
Quote from this site http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/herzl/
"Theodor Herzl, an Austrian Jew born to a prosperous, emancipated Budapest family, is recognized as the founder of the Zionist idealogy when he published his book in 1896,"
Some scholars even suggest that the first and second world wars were brought about by Darwin's phrase the "survival of the fittest" (the Nazis had the German, Austrian and some Hungarian people believe they were a superior Arian race).
Quote from this site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase which is shorthand for a concept relating to competition for survival or predominance. Originally applied by Herbert Spencer in his Principles of Biology of 1864, Spencer drew parallels to his ideas of economics with Charles Darwin's theories of evolution by what Darwin termed natural selection.
Although Darwin used the phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for "natural selection", it is a metaphor, not a scientific description. It is not generally used by modern biologists, who use the phrase "natural selection" almost exclusively."
I believe it is dangerous to talk about evolution with just Darwin's hypothesis "On the Origin of Species" without mentioning at least the problems that have and may continue to arise from the "Survival of the fittest".
You are talking about what is called "Social Darwinism", Make Money, which was a gross distortion of Darwin's observations, in fact the opposite of what Darwin said.
Social Darwinists sought to determine which species or races were "the fittest" by their own criteria, and then to manipulate the environment to kill off other species and races artificially. "My God, the inferior black men will outbreed us superior white men unless we take action ..."
This is not only morally abhorrent; it is the opposite of what Darwin said. Darwin said that if the black men are outbreeding you, then they are by definition, fitter. Nature chooses the fittest on her own criteria, which have nothing to do with who thinks they are The Master Race, and everything to do with numbers.
Darwin's theory was called "The Evolution Of Species", and applying the word evolution to other things, like galaxies and universes, is outside anything Darwin said, and is nothing to do with Darwin's theory.
The English word "evolution" just means "change over time", and can be applied to anything, even, as Gamergirl pointed out in one evolution thread, an individual.
Darwin's theory of natural selection, combined with Mendel's theory of genetics, and Watson and Crick's later discovery of DNA, are the core elements of the current theory of the evolution of species. The Big Bang and Black Holes are in the realm of physics, not biology, and Darwin never referred to physics at all.
Thanks Jenny, you have just proven my point by saying "Darwin's theory of natural selection".
Darwin's theory of natural selection is survival of the fittest.
Quote from this web site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
On natural selection "The term was introduced by Charles Darwin in his groundbreaking 1859 book The Origin of Species"
Quote from this web site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
"... Darwin used the phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for "natural selection"
So when talking about Darwin's hypotheses of evolution we can not take natural selection (aka survival of the fittest) out of the equation.
And we can not say that Social Darwinism came later because Darwin himself mentioned natural selection (aka survival of the fittest) in his book The Origin of Species.
I hold my point that teaching evolution to children is dangerous because natural selection (aka survival of the fittest) is a part of it. Those children may all get along well together but they all may grow up to be bigots when looking at other tribes.
Mike, just because people later took Darwin's phrase and twisted it to their own evil purposes does not mean that Darwin would have endorsed them doing so. Especially as the way they used it was the OPPOSITE of the way Darwin used it.
Darwin would say "oh, the black men are outbreeding you? That means the black men are fitter, and they are surviving better". Darwin would NEVER have said "oh, the black men are outbreeding you? You can't let that happen, because there is some other way of defining 'fitter' which gives you the right to try to kill anyone who is fitter than you by my original definition."
However, those who want to justify their evil actions will take anything, including the Bible, and distort it beyond all recognition. Just as Jesus would deplore some of the things done in his name, do too would Darwin.
Social Darwinism arose long after Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species", and I have twice explained why Social Darwinism is the very opposite of what Darwin said.
I know that you don't actually UNDERSTAND what Darwin said, which is why it is hard to explain to you the difference, but I ask that you really give it a good go and try to understand, or take my word for it - or go and do a second-year Social Theory course at a reputable university.
I completely agree with you about the perils of racism, and I assert that people who truly understand Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, and "survival of the fittest" are LESS likely to be racially bigoted than fundamentalists of ANY religion who do NOT understand Darwin's theory.
In fact, if Darwin's theory were better taught, bigots would not be able to invoke his name to justify their actions, because everyone would understand that they were talking crap if they tried it. Only ignorance gives them the power to use Darwin's name that way and get away with it.
I think it is a stretch to say that the big bang hypothesis or the black holes hypothesis were "spawned," by Darwin's theory. But - if you have some evidence of that, I am open to listening to what you have to say.
Personally, I do not see any connection, and I am fairly certain Darwin has no idea of either of these when he first postulated his theory.
And I am still not understanding how you are somehow saying that lack of proof for black holes some how discredits evolutionary biology. But I am all ears.
I also think you are twisting his theory to suit yourself. "Survival of the fittest," was a purely biological term, and I think it is fair to say that races have considered themselves "superior" to other races since the beginning of time. Certainly the bible makes reference to the"Chosen" people.
Once again, I would like to see some evidence of this, so feel free to leave a link to these "scholars," that make this contention.
Well, I don't know anything about that either. I know The German Nazi party promoted "Christian nationalism," and "positive christianity." But I was not aware that they reached these ideals because of Darwin's theories. Once again, please leave a link or two.
Please re-read what I said in the first place. I made it clear that Darwin's theory is but the beginning and there are other theories involved.
Although, one more time, please leave me a link to some scholarly statements regarding the "problems," that have arisen from this.
Thanks for returning the peace Mark. And I like being called dude too, dude.
Robert W. Sussman on this site argues that natural selection is not genetically driven to compete for survival or is inherently selfish as opposed to the prevailing view in popular and scientific literature. This site makes some good points but then says this below.
Quote from http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/902.html
"Charles Darwin himself believed that morality plays a role in human evolution by natural selection. A high standard of morality may give the individual and his children no advantage over other group members, Darwin wrote, yet it works to give his tribe an advantage over other tribes."
So it is the prevailing view in popular and scientific literature and Charles Darwin believed it himself.
Do a Google search for 'Nazism and Survival of the fittest' and you will come up with 152,000 sites. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&c … &meta=
Do a Google search for 'Zionism and Survival of the fittest' and you will come up with 35,800 sites. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&c … &meta=
Just go to a couple of the 152,000 links already above.
Mark I have never heard that the The German Nazi party promoted "Christian nationalism," and "positive christianity" other than where you have mentioned it in this forum. Maybe you could supply some web sites that prove your point?
The Nazi Party was officially called the National Socialist German Workers' Party. I scanned this site quickly but did not see any reference to "Christian nationalism," or "positive christianity". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
To the contrary, at the Nuremberg trials some nazi war criminals spoke of Oden, their god of war and Valhalla, their weird heaven where they go after death to continually fight wars.
Here's a couple of sites that I found that talk about Christian Nationalism but neither mention the German Nazi party. PT might know about these ones.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2003/12/28/c … w-bush.htm
http://www.speroforum.com/wiki/default. … alism.html
Mark are you just coning me into doing your research for more Hubs?
I am going to take a break for a couple of days. I'm spending too much time in here. See you in a few days.
"Survival of the fittest", no doubt a problem and a favorite term of many a 'successful' capitalist. But perhaps a worse problem
historically is the Christian propensity of murdering and thieving from pagans. You (the state) get their lands and possessions, and we (the church) get their souls. This might be a theory of the 'Evolution of Soul', from the damned to salvation.
I don't see how survival of the fittest is not logical. It is more likely that a person (male or female, black, white or asian etc.) who is better built to be a strong swimmer via: genetic build...slender, strong shoulder, longer torso etc...has a better shot at survival than, a person whose genetic disposition is short, fat and slow etc. In the event that the world changed and people needed to rely on swimming as their basic trasportation instead of walking the ones who are, in this case physically better equiped to swim would survive. (you get the point)
This is not to say that all tall, slender, strong shoulder, long torsoed men will survive if in the event there was a flood (just as an example) if that person does not know how to swim, similarly the short, fat and slow one may be better suited to survive if he had first learned to swim.
However given they can both swim it is more likey the one built to swim would survive. Now, say another million years goes by and those who survived by swimming are also changing to suit their enviornment. Maybe they some how grow gills. They are still human however they have adapoted to thier surrounding.
( as a stupid joke you could call them...apehumish LOL)
Also to note. It use to be thought that the human genetic make up or our DNA strand consisted of over 100 thousand genes, now we know that it is only around 317, which means that each gene is capable of preforming more than one action.
In theory, each gene can change according to itself. How this is done, I don't know, but it is in some way a mutation and mutation doesn't necessarily mean bad. Although it can become bad, but if things work out right, this makes way for a better breed of humans or it can lead to the total destruction of humans.
(this is in no way a racist arguement.)
Also, when it comes to surviving, some people and certain "races" or ethnicities are either predisposed to or immune to certain diseases. Such as sickle cell anemia, AIDS, Breast Cancer, Skin Cancer, heart disease, stroke...just to name a few.
These genes are inherited. For instance, an African America male who carries the sickle cell trait who mates with an Asian Indian women who is predisposed to muscular degeneration...thier offspring may if female may be destined for health problems and die young or if male, they may never have any significant health problems and could be immune to certain illnesses like maylaria.
Now these are just examples. I am not a scientist or a doctor, but you should be able to get the point.
Commenting on your OP Mark
*Not everyone would agree with Popper that Scientific knowledge is 'that which has peen postulated, tested and not yet falsified'
*Darwin claimed that ''Food resources are limited, but are relatively stable over time.''
where did the stability or balance come from?
*Genetic drift has only resulted in distorted versions.
*As my English as not as yours , I will summarize what I understood from the evolutionary test here
and please correct me if I am wrong
''a virus and an bacteria were put in one place , it was found then that these organisms' behaviours changed to attack & defend in the combined new environment''
I think that evolution could be anything.
it could be assumptions, escape, science, theory, fact, rubbish , difficult and easy.
it is the representation of a materialised world in my opinion.
I admit also that religion is Faith , but not only this.
religion & evolution both depend on our way of life, thinking and responsing.
my question is:
do each attitude provides similar physicological needs to people?
Evolution & Science by:
SCIENTIFIC FACTS REFUTE THE CLAIMS OF THE “SHAMANISTIC RELIGION OF DARWINISM”
''According to the Shamanistic Religion of Darwinism: the first living organism formed spontaneously.
According to modern science, life cannot come into being by chance. Not one single protein or even a single cell, let alone a whole organism, can emerge by chance. The likelihood of any protein emerging by chance is only 1 in 10950. In practical terms, this equates to zero probability.
According to the Shamanistic Religion of Darwinism: living species descended from earlier, more primitive ones.
According to modern science, species cannot descend from one another. Every life form has its own unique characteristics. It is impossible for them to develop through another species’ gradual changes.
According to the Shamanistic Religion of Darwinism: fossils confirm the theory of evolution.
According to modern science, fossils are evidence of creation, not evolution. Some 100 million fossils have so far been discovered, and all of them represent complete, fully formed organisms. Not a single fossil indicates that it was undergoing any transitional “evolution.”
According to the Shamanistic Religion of Darwinism: species diversified through mutations.
According to modern science, mutations damage organisms, and do not improve them. They cannot cause a species to diversify: they either kill or cripple the mutated individual.
According to the Shamanistic Religion of Darwinism: humans are descended from ape-like creatures.
According to modern science, apes and humans are totally separate species. There is no family relationship between them. Despite their physical similarities, they have enormous differences that cannot be explained by claims of evolution.
According to the Shamanistic Religion of Darwinism: natural selection present in nature is proof of evolution.
According to modern science, natural selection cannot cause one living thing to evolve or give rise to new life forms.''
The "modern science" this person refers to is not the "modern science" I was taught at University. This must be some new meaning of the term "modern science" of which I was previously unaware.
I believe, for example, that there has been some previous discussion about "transitional" forms like lungfish and flying squirrels, so I am not sure why Eng M is waving this nonsense about again. These claims have been definitively disproven in previous threads.
Modern science does not claim "life cannot come into being through chance" - in fact, dozens of scientists have spent decades painstakingly recreating the conditions of early Earth in the lab to see if they can replicate the genesis of life. They wouldn't do that if they thought it was impossible, now, would they?
According to modern science, species descend from other species. The claim in this post that modern science says they can't is just rubbish.
No modern scientist EVER claimed that fossils are evidence of creation rather than evolution. There are plenty of transitional species in evidence in the fossil record, including several ape-like hominids that were the ancestors of modern primates, including chimps, apes, and humans. DNA testing shows that chimp DNA is only one or two percent different from human DNA.
The stuff about mutations is just wrong - plenty of mutations survive and propagate just fine and dandy, and this process has been documented in lab populations of rats and insects.
And the last claim? Natural selection cannot cause a living thing to evolve? Definitely wrong - the adaptation of species to the environment via the process of natural selection has been documented repeatedly in the field and in the lab.
Whoever this Harun Yahya person is, they are a liar and a fraud. Darwin never proposed any "shamanistic religion" - he proposed a testable theory, which has been tested, repeatedly, and had its predictions confirmed. Discoveries since Darwin's time have expanded our understanding of the process and how it works. The unfounded claims made by Harun Yahya about what "modern science" shows are simply incorrect.
Methinks Harun Yahya is a religious figure relying on the poor education of his audience to pull the wool over their eyes.
I agree with you in many points.
Harun Yahya is a philosopher. He has studied science but from my reading to his books I understand he mostly relies on his faith based on simple observations of nature and scientific facts.
so to him, it is science and faith together.
he believes that complicated systems were due to a personal power.
I agree and disagree with him in many things.
but you can't say that the whole of his audience is not educated without reading a book or several articles for him.
I think Harun Yahya was trying to summarize evolution for ordinary people who are so busy to read a lot of evolutionary assumtions.
if you want to be objective Jenny as you claim, pick up one argument and support your opposite opinion with evidences rather than saying Harun is wrong and we are right.
try to have a wider look please.
as I want to come with you to an objective discussion of points that could be justified by ordinary well-educated people(I hope I am one of them. lol)
lets look at the test stated by Mark earlier.
(correct me nicely if I was wrong please)
the above test was about behavioural adaption of the mentioned organisms when combined together.
how strong is your scientific bases to relate what has happened to evolution theories? can it be related to other theories which are dependent of evolution as well?
my second question to you is about the relation between uncertainity and Popper concept of scientific knowledge(OP).
I hope we discuss ideas instead of people.
it is always great discussing with you people but I'll have to leave till the end of RAMDAN month.
I will miss you.
Finally,the first word in Quran was READ.
God says:(Read in the name of your Lord Who created ) Quran 96:1
harun is not a valid source, he is a propagandist, please research his background and then wipe your mind clean of his tripe - "do you have an alternate account called deamon something"?
my qustion is:
do each attitude provide similar physicological needs to people? "
I'd answer you if I understood the question...
It was claimed that religions provide physicological needs to people.
does evolution theory give the same?
Eng M. Yes it does because since man's intelligence has evolved the major question asked by any scholar is WHY and HOW? And unfortunately it is debatable whether religion provides psychological respite to our minds as proven by the current state of the world. There is, in my opinion a difference between religion and being a spiritual person. The passing of ethical spiritual teachings is intended to sate the psychological needs of the people. Good Fearing doctrines however, have the opposite effect it seems.
The one inner question that is asked by any spiritual seeker is the origin of our being, the source of it. The question is really asking who am I, what is my source, where do I come from? The experience of many is that there is a memory of a utopia attached to the reason for asking.
Seeking the answer could be seen as a past- time to pass time and we may never get the answer. Hence these debates will be going on generations after our passing, as they were in the time of Plato and previous.
Many of you are confusing "Social Darwinism" with the actual basis of Darwin's theory, which did include social behaviors proving to be succesful in tribal prosperity and thus perpetuating more socially predisposed creatures (same goes for all pack, school, flock, herd creatures).
The corporate examples and the Nazi's are not an example of evolution, but of "social Darwinism" which is a misappropriation of his name and theories based on the remarkable similarities between the two subjects, but that, similarities notwithstanding, have nothing to do with one another.
The question of whether one species has become another, "have you seen it?" is ludicrous. The very essence of the word "evolution" is that it is gradual. "Revolution" is fast. It is not a theory of revolution, therefore it requires thousands of years to take place, not a century or two.
However, that said, Mark, you omitted "random mutation" as I read through your piece (or else I missed it somehow). It's not simply a matter of drift, or not always. Random mutations (radiation, cancers, disease - normal or in the womb - etc.) are responsible variation frequently. Even with an instant, if you will, variation, it still takes at teh very least hundres and hundreds of years for a new species to evolve (species being that which cannot reproduce with it's ancestor). Tigers and Lions are examples of close special ties, they can breed and produce offspring, but their offspring are incapable of producing viable offspring. So, there's your one step progression if you like.
And Sandra, on your body shape idea....the short fat, vs. tall and broad... climate has had as much if not more to do with bodyshape than just about anything. If you take a look at the Inuit and many of the people of the Himalayan people's you will notice a trend towards shorter, stockier bodies. The belief is that a short stout body that keeps the innards warm in cold climes, the outter surface area of flesh being reduced and therefore less inclined to release heat (like a coffee cup). The opposite is seen in the long lean bodies of many tribes people living in hot climes... long, slender bodies with much surface area to radiate off heat rather than a thick stout body where most of the heat would be locked into the center (I'd go look up some specific African or Aboriginal names but I'm too lazy to do that for a forum post).
And claims that there are no obvious relationships or similarities to apes, particularly if you look at Bonobos and Chimpanzees, to humans only indicates you haven't read the genetic information on the subject. Depending what you read, chimps are as near as almost 1% off from being us, and I've seen a few studies putting bonobos under even that. "Ape" is a broad term and as such information can be found to compare humans to Gorillas or Orangutans that make the claims seem unbelievable. But the evidence is at the very least compelling and far more verifiable than super natural stuff.
That's what I have been trying to say all along, that Darwin's evolutionism is a faith system. So according to the American 1st amendment, if Christianity can not be taught to children in schools then neither should Darwin's evolutionism. And when "Survival of the fittest" is brought into the picture it is actually detrimental to children.
Mark here's one that you may want to nominate for Jenny's thread.
What did a platypus evolve from?
Did a platypus evolve from a duck and a beaver?
If so then how did it end up in Australia?
And why is there no beavers in Australia and no platypus' in North America?
Here is the thing about what you said, Evolution is not represented as a religion. This mumbo jumbo about it being a religion came after. Further, if Christainity were allowed to be taught in "public" schools, then all other religions no matter how redicules they are, would also be allowed to be taught.
If I decided that my religion was going to Mickey Mouse, without any proof besides a handful of written documents, then I would according to your understanding of the 1st amendment, be able to have this taught.
There are public school and there are private schools. Similarly, I will ask the same question that I aked VP on the other thread.
If in fact, religions were allowed to be taught in public schools than the government could also impose evolution in private schools.
I am almost possitive that religously affilated school would not want this.
Like I said to VP, if you want Christianity taught in public schools, then private would also have to teach evolution.
So the 1st amendment can make no laws pertaining to a religious establishment, whether private school or church etc...
I think that VPs possition was that the 1st amendment gives religions freedom to do what they want to, that the goverment has no say in what they do. However it is written with regards to relgious "establishments", and public schools are not, so the government can make a law that religions cannot be taught in the public schools because public schools are not religious establishments.
Actually, the platypus is a monotreme, and its closest living related species is the echidna. Don't let the external appearance fool you - an echidna might LOOK like a hedgehog or a porcupine, but that doesn't mean they are closely related.
A squid has a very human-looking eye, but it is actually a product of parallel evolution and has a very different basis from a mammal eye - species develop to suit the environment they are in.
Webbed feet help you survive if you paddle in water. That's why ducks have them, and that's why platypi have them. Echidnas don't have them, because they live on land - but they do have sticky tongues, because they eat ants. The echidnas with stickier saliva got more food, and in the tough times, this made the difference between life and death. The runny-saliva echidnas starved to death, and only the sticky-saliva echidnas survived to breed.
However, when you look at the genetics, the platypus and the echidna are closely related to one another, and are genetically very different from New World anteaters and beavers.
Their common ancestor lived way back on Pangaea, and looked something like a rat. It was a good swimmer, like rats, and was an opportunistic scavenger. Over time, some populations took to nesting in burrows with submerged entrances, and specialised for water life, eating worms and water bugs. Other populations lived in drier areas, and focused on eating termites and ants.
I don't understand why the religious creationists get so hung up on external appearances - haven't any of you heard of "form follows function"?
P.S. Monotremes are a "living fossil" - they are another transitional species. They lay eggs, but nurture their young in a pouch using patches of skin which ooze a milky substance. They are a living example of the way in which evolution took the apparently huge step from hatching independent young to mammals nursing infants for months or years.
There is zero even remotely plausible evidence for Creationism. There is only awe, wonder and perplexity written off to "intelligent design" due to lack of another, more palatable answer. Just because something is remarkably complex and beyond the ability of man to noodle through does not mean that an intelligent "other" created it. It's plausible that one did, but the suggestion is entirely speculative. There is zippo for evidence in support.
Evolution at least has incredibly massive mounds of verifiable evidence to support its viability as a theory. The more you read about it, in the fine detail and specific instances, the more obvious it becomes.
My litmus test for letting someone move past an "acquaintance friendship" onto "friendship" has to do with creationism and whether or not they think it is at least as good as evolution.
If someone says they think in their honest opinion that it is not viable then I usually ask the question subtly, again, at a different time and see if I get the same answer (because in my experience there are many religious people who are really good liars and will do anything they can to conceal what they actually believe in order to have a shot at converting you later on once you get more emotionally attached to them).
If the answer comes back the second time that they think it is a viable way of explaining the origin of things and that it merits some scientific investigation, then I usually emotionally relegate that person or persons to a lower level of interaction that does not allow them to get very close to me.
Well, I have to say I am extremely disappointed in the quality of entries for Jenny's thread so far, but as the OP drops off the page I am sure they will begin to improve
I am once again unsure of the point you are trying to make. Although that first link you left is an interesting one. Mainly because this is absolutely not a new idea, and, if you think about how many people have died in battle fighting for their god, you will start to see how religion has been taking advantage of this for many years. Politics also - I recommend George Orwell's "1984" as a good book on the subject.
Just look at the people here on these forums preaching nationalism, "oil independence," "prophecies coming true," and "America under threat," to see this predilection in action. "Survival of the fittest," is an apt description in this case. How many popes or presidents have died in battle? No, they are the fit ones, persuading others to do it for them. If you want to talk about "Social Darwinism," this is the process in action.
But you are getting away from the original purpose of this thread with these divergences. If you follow the links I left, hopefully, you will gain a greater understanding of what evolution and Darwin's theories actually are.
And your argument that evolution is a faith and therefore should not be taught in schools just tells me you didn't bother reading anything I put here in the first place. Ignorance is not an Excuse, any more.
Looks like Jenny took care of your worries over the origins of the Platypus
I think it may be that your English is getting in the way. I hate to tell you this, but there are a number of internet sites that will lie about science in an effort to persuade people that their religion is correct. I know, I know, that goes against all the "values," that these religions hold dear, but this is in fact, the case. That "scientific," evidence you cut and pasted is just lies.
You can trust the links I left in the OP as being genuine science, I know they are a little more difficult to understand, but bear with them.Ignorance is not an Excuse, if you do.
As to this point you made:
I don't understand what you are asking in the first question. I think you did not read my OP fully judging by the statement you then made.
Although there is a grain of truth in the blue question, but not in the way you think.
As I understand it, Darwin became dis-satisfied with the psychological sugar pill that believing in creationism is and decided to seek a more full understanding of how we came about. So, in a very real sense, christianity spawned his theories. He just said to himself, "This doesn't make any sense to me," and began looking. And the theory of evolution was born.
A good argument to ask yourself the same questions? Who knows? Only you. If you are satisfied you have all the answers you need, then don't bother reading anything I put or follow any of the links.
Sandra - good point.
Jenny and Zarm - Still hoping for some stuff worthy of nomination.
Mark you always seem to go back to blaming God or religions for wars even though when you look into each conflict you will see that it was more over land and resources than God or religions.
And what you seem to neglect are Marxist atheist governments. The Russian Revolution was an Marxist atheist revolution.
Quote from this web site http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM
"The results were shocking: according to these first figures, independent of war and other kinds of conflict, governments probably have murdered 119,400,000 people, Marxist governments about 95,200,000 of them. By comparison, the battle-killed in all foreign and domestic wars in this (20th) century total 35,700,000."
So the fact that atheists continue to say that all wars and killing through out history have resulted because of God or religions is mute. It doesn't hold water. It is also fairly common knowledge that most atheists push Darwin's evolutionist belief system.
Well, if the cap fits....
But this is really besides the point.
We are trying to discuss the theory of evolution.
Marxism is a political system, not a biological scientific theory.
But, I understand - you feel your belief system is threatened so you feel the need to defend it by attacking a scientific theory.
And as far as your other comment to Jenny - Come on. you can do better than that. By your criteria, we should not teach a valid scientific theory in case it incites children to defend their tribes. Using the same logic we cannot teach christian creationism, or Islamic for that matter.
Just exactly what are we going to teach our children?
Hey Mike, by insider information, Marxist revolution in Russia led to a pretty religious society. We had a mummy of our deity laying in Mausoleum (still there btw), and regularly brought bloody offerings to satisfy his appetite
Eng. M -
Willful ignorance is not an excuse either
Let me see if I can educate you a little further then. Just this first "proof" will do for a start:
"According to the Shamanistic Religion of Darwinism: the first living organism formed spontaneously."
"According to modern science, life cannot come into being by chance"
The animistic religion of certain peoples of northern Asia in which mediation between the visible and spirit worlds is effected by shamans.
Clearly, this does not apply to Darwin's theory.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
As you can see, none of these apply to Darwin, nor myself.
Of one's own free will: freely, voluntarily, willfully, willingly. Idioms: of one's own accord, on one's own volition.
No mention of the word "chance."
An accidental or unpredictable event
The person who wrote those words is not "trying to summarize evolution for ordinary people who are so busy to read a lot of evolutionary assumtions." He is a liar and a charlatan preying on ignorant people.
And I would tell him that to his face if I ever met him.
I wish you a renewed appreciation for the wonders of evolution and the educational opportunities that Allah has provided for you.
thanks for your funny education MARK.
I hope your chance will help you in your life.
see you in a month
Mohammed - It was my understanding that you were interested in improving your English. If you think it is funny because the words do not mean what you want them to mean, I shall not bother in future.
I guess it doesn't really matter what the words mean if it is what you want to hear.
Hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world combine to create a testable scientific theory, which has so far held up to some very rigorous testing.
And one charlatan says, "that is wrong, what scientists are really saying is it was all chance. Don't worry about the evidence or facts, or the tests, I know better than they do what they really mean, and they are all lying."
Enjoy your communing with allah.
I must admit, I have very little knowledge of Ramadan, other than from when I was living in London. The ready availability of good quality prostitutes and whiskey makes London a popular spot for many well-to-do muslim men to celebrate the holiday away from the pressures of their belief system.
I was planning to response to you later since I am quite busy but my body is itching me & I have to write this to stop the itch.
I have three points for you below.
1- in the first test in the link of OP
from the above report:
I understood that the two organisms under test changed their behavior as the circumstances became different.
I think the author is trying to support 'natural selection' by saying that shortening food supplies for a living thing would excite it to change its behavior to survive.
My concerns here are :
-does that really support 'natural selection' in the form presented to us?
-Can't this phenomenons have limitations?
-Does the experiment explain physical changes without referring to unknown factors in nature by the time of formation?
-Aren't scientists explaining their resultsto support evolution more than acceptable?
-Why don't they put other possibilities for such responses of organisms?
-are there any discovered intermediate fossils?
I hope we have someone understands in biology in the hub more than I do.
I am not a scientist, I am a reader.
2- God says:( Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? *
And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them, and We have made therein broad highways (between mountains) for them to pass through: that they may receive Guidance. *
And We have made the heavens as a canopy well guarded: yet do they turn away from the Signs which these things (point to)! *
It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course.*
We granted not to any man before thee permanent life (here): if then thou shouldst die, would they live permanently?*
Every soul shall have a taste of death: and We test you by evil and by good by way of trial. to Us must ye return. ) Quran 21: 30-35
and he says:(Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators? *
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, they have no firm belief. ) Quran 52: 35-36
YUSUF ALI translations
3- I know what you are saying about Muslims in London because I have been there.
note that not all your fingers are equal.
Muslims are humans just like others.
some interesting perplexities with that.
I don't think you quite understand what "evolved" means, Eng M.
When T7 is introduced, the bacteria which are most susceptible to it DIE.
The remaining ones breed.
Of the next generation, the ones which are most susceptible, DIE.
Within a few generations, you have T7-resistant bacteria. They are genetically different from the original bacteria. They are resistant to T7 in a way that the original populations were not.
There may have been one or two individuals in the original population who had quite high levels of resistance, but the new population has a higher level of resistance than any one individual from the original population - through natural selection.
HOWEVER - if the bacteria become 100% resistant, the virus will die out. One or two individuals in the virus population, however, have a different way of getting through the bacteria's cell wall. Those ones can get in, even to the resistant bacteria, so those ones survive and breed.
Before long, all the viruses around are the more potent ones who use the special and different type of attack, because those are the only ones that can survive in a culture of resistant bacteria.
HOWEVER, some of the resistant bacteria are also resistant to the special and different way that the potent viruses are using. As the potent viruses kill off the resistant bacteria, these super-double-resistant bacteria are the only ones left to breed.
It's called co-evolution because the two species evolve in parallel, together. A change in one species flows through - via natural selection - in the next generation (mere hours or days later) into the other species - by the mechanism of killing off particular types of individuals.
This description covers many, many generations of viruses and bacteria, and refers to genetic changes, aka "evolution".
Viruses are really too simple an organism to have a "behaviour change" - they are basically a semi-animated chemical reaction, and they do what they do with no volition. Their capabilities are determined by their DNA, and their "behaviour" by what they bump into and react with.
They don't have a complex repertoire of "behaviour" that they can "change" the way creatures with brains do.
- I know what you are saying about Muslims in London because I have been there.
note that not all your fingers are equal.
Muslims are humans just like others.
great analogy - but add nyc, buffalo, ithaca and syracuse to the havens of surface islam - just send a half dressed girl their way or offer a free night on the town and see their true spots- but, they still fast during ramadan
Eng M -
I didn't say that all of this man's followers were ignorant; I said that he was taking advantage of the ones who were.
Anyone who has been educated in modern science will immediately recognise that his claims which begin "modern science says" or "modern science has shown" are utterly untrue.
Since he is the person claiming that he has found this information in "modern science" it is up to HIM to do what Mark has done and provide references back to the original research which he claims contain this information.
It is not up to ME to search the entire body of work of modern science to try to figure out where he got such a weird idea. If he provides a reference to the source, THEN I can look at the science and debate the points the scientific article is making.
At the moment he is just saying "modern science says" and then making a statement which contradicts all the modern science I ever learned at University.
If you simply read the Encyclopaedia Brittannica entry on evolution you will find that all his claims are false.
Like The Boxer, Simon and Garfunkle.
-all lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and he disregards the rest, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, la, lie, lie,lie.-
Not a comment to anyone specific, just something in general that all men seem to display no matter how factual or imfactual??? we are.
But at the end of the day you still have a virus and you still have a bacteria and a flawed argument.
I think your arguement is flawed by saying God did not intend for evolution.
You have a virus and bacteria population that are genetically different from preceding populations.
So where is the flaw?
The ultimate flaw is no matter how one shows changes within a species - adaptation etc - there are no ultimate transitional fossils - showing they ultimately over time become something else.
There should be millions of them - and there is not a single one. (Please don't post an endless list of specious examples that no one agrees on - not even evolutionists)
After the genetic change of the bacteria and the virus - you still have a virus resistant bacteria (to that strain) and a colony of virus ready to start the process again. You can show that the viruses in the test tube die off - because you've cut them off from other food stuff - but that's like showing I drank all the Slurpee in a cup. It doesn't necessarily follow the Slurpee machine died.
It's no different than the North Carolina Tobacco plants that were being attacked on one end of a field with a fungus. By the time the fungus had reached the center of the field - the remaining plants had developed a chemical defense for the fungus and it advanced no more.
But we still smoke the tobacco and presumably the fungus went to another field. All we are seeing is NOT co-evolution - but co-existence. (you may say they "evolved" but it needs to be qualified)
Survival of the fittest tobacco plants does not then infer we will see tobacco plants changed in to another kind of plant - even over degrees. We have only witnessed fungus resistant tobacco.
The lack of any transitional evidences - clearly shows that's as far as the process goes. To use these examples as proofs that something else or more - can happened/has happened is speculative.
If that was your intent.
If not - well, excuse me.
Your argument is flawed in suggesting that for me. You have never heard me state it - and I have said elsewhere I am open to the idea of a Creator who used Evolution as his method. But I do not believe He used Darwinian Evolution under any circumstances. The lack of evidence for it bears this out.
You must be confused about what I believe.
Ok fair enough, my appologies.
I have to ask then, what is the difference?
Let me restate that.
If it weren't for Darwin, then were would your understanding of evolution come from?
It is like saying, I believe God made a perfect man but I do not believe that he used Jesus under any circumstances because of the lack of evidence.
To all the God botherers who have broken my enjoyment of reading this hub..
Unlike you I do not live on a 6000 year old planet.
Get over your omni potent/present god he is either a psychopath or he cares a hell of a lot less for people than most civilized humans would if they could be everywhere all the time with unlimited powers.
You religious types start most of the wars fighting over who is right about which god.
. Your all wrong.
I spent a couple of years in the seventies as a born again christian because I was working with one of them who never shut up about it, and because I was a naive kid.
Come on, step out of the cowardly "devil in the corner" mentality and take the path of individuation. The planet will thank you.
Whilst I might agree with some of your sentiments, this is not a hub, it is a discussion forum
Thanks Mark. I will be back to discuss if that's ok.
Please do. We need more communist, left-wing, freedom-hating, satanist, Darwinist, child molesters in this discussion
long before Darwin - the Bible said this:
Genesis 1:12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
There are several things here. Notice the EARTH BROUGHT FORTH vegetation. That says life came from the earth. (The dirt)
Later - it says life came from the waters.
20 And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures,
24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds:
So LIFE came from the waters and the dirt. Spontaneously.
If life is in the elements - it ALL brought forth life. A symphony of life that has it's origin in the elements.
In the above verse - each thing comes forth AFTER ITS OWN KIND. It does not transform into ANOTHER kind - as the arguments above and Darwin suggest.
The earth and the water are capable of bringing forth an endless variety and supply of LIFE - each after its own kind.
These are from Chapter 1
In chapter 2 there is a summary
2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
BUT notice here - the Bible says these are the "generations" (plural). If the earth had been created in 7 literal days - the word would not be generations - showing many multiple periods of time - but instead would have said something like - this was the first generation.
Also notice that in using the word GENERATIONS it then follows the words - "the heavens and the earth when they were created."
In other words - it says - the Heavens and the earth were created in GENERATIONS. And next it sums up this GENERATIONS statement as if it were one day.This way:
"In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens"
All of these imply periods of time - not a literal day. Later we are told that each of the 7 days (or periods of time) were not typical days. A typical day begins at midnight or in older cultures - when the sun rises. But in the Genesis account we are told that THE EVENING AND THE MORNING WERE THE FIRST DAY - etc.
13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
And that's a truly odd way of expressing it. Without going into detail - Jewish Kabbalists understood these phrases to mean "out of chaos into order" - over 500 years ago. In the evening - there is no light but as the light of the day dawns - we are able to see clearer and clearer until there is full light and total order is now able to be seen. It is a TRANSITIONAL CLAUSE that implies time for this to happen.
Out of chaos into order.
These Kabbalists then speculated that the earth must be inordinately old and that creation must have taken a very long period of time - eons. They didn't know how much time - but they realized from reasoning the original Hebrew meanings of words - that that was what the text implied. It wasn't literal days as we read it in English.
Of course, there was no evolution/Atheist debates in those days - so at the least it is an interesting history remote from our time - knowing that others deduced this from the Hebrew Genesis.
I do not believe the tenets of Kabbalah or their mystical Beliefs. But the view of the Genesis account stands on its own merits and points - since it says what it says and that's all it says.
Finally notice this part:
"""5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth """
This flies in the face of what many anti-theists state for what they think the Bible says. In truth - many of them have never read the Bible - and surely many have not studied it - even as a text book.
no herb of the field had yet sprung up
God had not caused it to rain upon the earth
So here we see that God did not CREATE by just speaking and BAM it was there - like most people envision when they picture in their minds what it must have been like. Why did God not just have the plants appear in full bloom with seed pods as they eventually became? Why were all the seeds in the earth WAITING for the mist? How long did they wait? Generations? How many seeds can the earth produce. How much life can the waters make?
According to the Evolutionists - a lot.
According to the Bible - a lot.
From these few verses we can see there are plenty of elements to suggest something happened in those days that is unlike typical creation views.
So which form of evolution is right? Who knows - or how. It's an ongoing debate. The Bible says the "life" of the seeds was in the ground caused by mixing with water. But in the water when life came forth - it required no other additive. Perhaps life is essentially based in the water and there's something fundamentally central to it which we haven't discovered yet.
Evolutionists say gook made one seed eventually (Ambiogenesis) and then it "evolved" into others and then into a multiplicity and then it covered the earth and then we have them dying and morphing and dying and morphing some more. (requiring many undiscovered missing links) Each not coming from it's own kind - but from multiplied variations of others' kinds.
There's some proof for some of that - except the gook stuff, and the morphing stuff and the evolving stuff - and the missing links.
All I know for sure is this, Alcohol and Calculus don't mix. Never drink and derive.
As usual, PT, you are trying to distract from the purpose of this thread which is to try and help the ignorant understand the process of evolution.
Merely spouting great reams of text taken from the bible and confusing the issue will not help that cause. If you simply dismiss out-of-hand all the evidence and proof for an on-going evolutionary process you are doing both yourself and others a dis-service.
But, if I can boil down your argument against the theory of evolution it seems to be this:
1. Although you accept that species do adapt, change and evolve, because the one test you have chosen to discuss does not show a species turning into an entirely new species, this test is invalid and this proves to you that evolution does not happen.
2. Despite the massive amounts of evidence for transitional species, you prefer to believe that this is all lies.
3. Despite the fact that I made several clear statements at the beginning of this thread:
You then prefer to believe that because evolution does not claim to understand or explain the very first sign of life, this is proof that it doesn't happen.
The word is "Abiogenesis," by the way.
I am not sure how you can distill your clearly limited understanding of evolution into this statement.
Feel free to follow some of the links I placed in the first post. Perhaps you will the discover that evolutionists do not say, "Gook made one seed eventually."
I realize that you see the theory of evolution as a "personal attack," on your belief system, but resorting to these low tactics of twisting the facts and what evolution theory actually states should be beneath any christian.
What a shame it is not.
I agree with you on the alcohol and calculus though.....
You're unbelievable Mark. I just laid out evolution as a possibility in the Bible - and you suggest I think evolution is an attack against my Christianity.
Concerning Gook - if you can't see spoof when you read it - it's no wonder you can't see a Christian supporting evolution.
That's why I don't debate you. You half read, you half debate and you half care.
I liked the monkey with the Breasts though. You probably half think we Christians print that out and keep it in secret places.
There isn't massive evidence for Transitional Species. There's massive words that suggest massive evidence.
You constantly deride the 7 day earth creation story - but when someone shows you words in context 3500 years old showing otherwise - you obfuscate what is clearly shown you as this.
"""Merely spouting great reams of text taken from the bible""
As opposed to great reams of disputed Transitional Species material.
Whatever - not to worry - Obama will make it all work out.
Ok one point at a time -
What has Obama got to do with this discussion?
I did not spout great reams of Transitional Species material - I left a link.
And the only people disputing it are creationists.
As for the breast - women have them, which is one of the few things I know about women.
But if you think evolution does happen and god did it, why don't you just come out and say so instead of saying this:
As I have said before, all any one has to do is to say:
"Well of course there is an evolutionary process - that is the way god created the world."
And then we can start arguing over whether it happened spontaneously or there was a divine hand involved.
So go ahead and say it without all the attacks on "evolutionists," and "gook stuff," and the "morphing stuff."
Can you say it without all that "stuff." ?
I don't know how many times I have to say that evolution in no way proves the bible wrong.
Unless you take it literally.
what 7 day creation story? is it consecutive? redactor, eloheim or jehovah account?
Do you even know who the redactor was or why he came about smarty pants?
Quote from Torah redactor
It's interesting to note how Constantine 1 in 325 AD also "wishing to promote ... national unity" like the Persian emperor did in Ezra's time called for the First Council of Nicaea. Constantine 1 called for the council before he became a Christian because his mother Helen was a Christian. The council rightfully decided in favor of Athanasius obvious Trinity over the Arius heresy of Arianism.
Another interesting comparison is that both the Persian emperor and Constantine 1 stopped the persecution of God's Church.
Both comparisons prove to me that God's Holy Spirit has been with His people all along.
Sunforged what you say doesn't have any effect on Christianity today. None at all.
Ok - one point at a time.
There are numerous scientists that dispute Transitional Species. Many Atheists and Pantheists. Some emphatically - some privately because they can not bear the ridicule of their peers. (priests?)
You did post a link - with only links to voluminous links and proofs. Kinda like a Bible. What's the difference - post a link or post the 50 links on the links page. Voluminous. That's not even a single argument there. There's 50 separate arguments which I have read in the past. Would I post a link to the Bible - and 66 links to the books of the Bible and say see - there's my argument?
I might. But I can imagine your follow up post to that. I'm not saying you shouldn't have done it - I'm saying it pales in comparison to the 5 verses I used. (I know the proofs are different but you see the point)
The reason I haven't stated I "Believe" God created with Evolution - is because I am still studying it. It's been 7 years but it's a new field. I do not have the luxury of standing on the backs of 100,000's of scientists and philosophers who have works that can be researched and copied and pasted like you do. You don't have to read Hebrew and know history and a whole host of other requirements in order to debate both Atheists and Christians who are less prepared to debate this particular subject and demand unimaginable proofs - none of which they are willing to consider.
The Atheist/Non Theists generally have no idea what the Bible actually says and use effusively cut and paste opinions. The Christians on the other hand generally have no idea the state of the art in Evolutionary theory. So for a Christian who might believe he sees Evolution in the Bible and wants to debate it the bar is a lot higher than just saying Richard Dawkins says, blah blah blah. (or similar blah, blah, blahs posted on Talk Origins - interesting as they are) Or debating the Christian who thinks your soul is going to hell because you do not believe a literal 24hrs - even though you are a literalist.
I know you want to have Christians say God did the deal in evolution but the only group you can intelligently discuss this with is the old earth group. I am definitely old earth. Gerald Schroeder, Antony Flew, Hugh Ross (Astronomer) and many others hold to this view. In it's modern sense it is about 30 years old and has been gaining recognition among Christian Scientists - and by extension - lay people. Many Atheists are coming to this view in PART because their former worldview has problems. What they think are insurmountable problems.
To me - the discussion among Old Earth Christians appears to boil down to this. The Big Bang is correct - there must be an explanation - that explanation can not be more Big Bangs or more universes because that requires the same answers. The Universe is old, the earth is old and was made for man.
That's the foundation.
Man is either old or he is not. if he is - then man was a process until Adam when God breathed the Breathe of Life into Him. Man did not become a living animal when God did this - he already was living. He became something else - he became a living soul instead of a living animal. That event separates the living soul man from the animals and hominids and it divides history into two groups. Pre-Adamic and Post-Adamic.
Shroeder's interpretation is that God took one of the Man Like animals - and Imparted a Spirit into him - (breathed the breathe of life) thus making him Adam. The Bible does not say he became ALIVE - it says he became a LIVING SOUL. Adam literally means "man of the red earth" - but Soul means a spirit.
So this verse:
7 ”And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
7 ”And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, (he made the body just like the other animals) and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; (He put a spirit inside the body) and man became a living soul.” (body+spirit = living soul)
We usually visualize this as man lying on the ground with God bent on his knee leaning over Adam's dead body with His mouth on his nose. But Adam could have been alive - and walking upright when this happened. He may not even have known. It's still literal and the only thing which changes is our tradition.
Mark, you will always keep yourself in a state of fits trying to prove evolution to young earth 24 hr days - Creationists. I know you love the agony and the ecstasy. But Christians believing it doesn't make them idiots - they just haven't been convinced yet. And truthfully - Darwinian evolutionary argument needs a lot of refinement and a whole lot more humility - we're still at the earliest stages of understanding.
Concerning your statement that evolution does not prove the Bible wrong but only that it cannot be taken literally - I am not confident of this. That's another reason I won't decide yet on what I believe in the literalism area. It is obvious to me - there is a remarkable semblance of literalism in the VERY FEW verses I posted previously. Those things and others make me withhold judgment.
When you ask can we debate this stuff without attacks etc. The answer is no. It is impossible for you to do so. You have a great disdain for Christians AND their arguments - and your every post reeks it. And it doesn't help when 4 or 5 others who can not contain themselves jump in as well. It is withering to stand up to it all and just try to say what one wants to say.
I have a great disdain for Atheist/Non Theist opinions expressed with rancor towards Christianity and Christians. I don't care they hold them - only how they generally express them. But you'd be hard pressed to find a post where I am using the more masculine adjectives. You'll find several posts where I have reached out for civility. Many seem to demand for Christians what they will not do themselves.
But I will admit to this sin - I have given sarcasm for sarcasm. I have a weakness for it, I am able to like it a lot.
Concerning beginnings of life and how organisms, animals and man etc arose out of the elements either by God or without god - that is a debate I don't think I want to have. I do not have enough evidence for my opinions and you are too dogmatic about yours. Some believe it was intelligently designed over eons but no one knows how life itself began. No proof exists that survival of the fittest is a valid theory nor even natural selection. The most that can be said is that some kind of past life was here and we think this is the best explanation. But we are very far from proving any of it.
That is what I think should be taught in schools - and I believe the name of the God/force etc should be left out - until the philosophical debate advances to the point where one can say - OK, there is a God - now we need to decide if that God has revealed Himself in time or in History? (That's the point Antony Flew has come to - and I have come to that point too for curriculum - even though think I know who has revealed Himself - I don't think it needs to be taught.)
Concerning breasts - I could tell from your website they are a special subject for you.
Not much debate there. And I'm sorry I cannot advance the forum topic - only show the topic is in great question. I haven't done that - but we can talk.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
The only "scientists" I see disputing the evidence are creationists. And let's be clear on the meaning here. We are a transitional species. Please leave a link to these "atheists," who dispute the evidence. Pantheist is a term that means nothing in this discussion. Pantheism is an attempt to appease the religious people by saying, "Well, if you want to call the universe god, OK, I can say god." Whether some of these atheists choose to do so in private, I cannot answer, and I doubt you can either.
But if you want to twist the term "peers" to mean "priests" - if it makes you feel better, go right ahead.
Yes, posting a link rather than cluttering up this thread with quoted text seems easier. But if you like, I can quote the entire text next time.
I do see the point, but do you see mine?
You make several points in this statement, and I will try to deal with them individually.
We both have the luxury of standing on the backs of 100,000's of scientists and philosophers who have works that can be cut and pasted. Along with numerous translations of the bible that can also be cut and pasted.
But the main difference here is that it is a scientific theory that does not require a knowledge of ancient Hebrew to understand.
You do need a basic understanding of biology though. Which, in its own way needs just as much study to fully understand it.
Personally, I have spent more time studying the bible and its various translations than I have the scientific basis for Darwin's theory.
But I applied my own personal litmus test to both and the bible was found wanting.
"Does it make sense."?
I can claim a certain knowledge of the bible because of the education system I went through. I agree that christians need to be educated in evolution, which is what I am hoping to achieve with this discussion.
My personal interpretation of the bible has led me to believe that there are no christians on the planet. But that is a different argument.
I don't want any such thing. As you know, I have had many discussion with the young earth group and Jenny's thread is littered with their opinions. I do find it hard to believe that educated people would argue against the idea of evolution on a scientific basis when there is so much evidence for it.
Many atheists are coming to what view?
I have never heard this either. "Made for man" ? What has that to do with anything? As for the big bang, I have said before that I do not grasp the underlying physics behind that theory and cannot say one way or another. I will say that I do not think it has anything to do with evolution. Abiogenesis is a different argument, and I think both groups are staring from a faulty beginning. i.e.e that there was a beginning in the first place. My little brain will not allow me to conceptualize what came before.
This would appear to be the Catholic version of events. That evolution was an ongoing process, but the soul was introduced at some point along the way. Which rather means god stepped in part way through the process, and discounts Abiogenesis. (Creation)
This makes the obvious assumption, outside of all the discussions - i.e. that there is a creator in the first place. Why do we need that assumption?
Although, this also leads me to my personal interpretation of the bible.i.e. That if god made us all from the same building blocks, the dust of the ground, doesn't it make sense that we are all related? Genetically.......
I know - Of course it doesn't make them idiots, merely ignorant. This is what I started this thread for.
I wish you well in your continuing education.
Of course I have disdain for any one who starts from the premise that I am damned to an eternity in hell and if I just opened my eyes to the beauty of the LORD, I would understand. Although, if you look through all the threads, you will find mostly attacks against me snipped out. I prefer gentle sarcasm rather than a direct assault.
Why? People claiming to be christians have caused an awful lot of damage. I personally have been subject to this. Why should I not show rancor towards some one who claims to be a christian, yet favors nuclear weapons?
You have already made it clear that you are in favor of the bible and there was a god who created the world. By any definition of the word "dogmatic," that applies.
There is an awful lot of proof that survival of the fittest and natural selection exists, (And I don't mean Mike's version) but you are choosing to discard it and even trying to discredit the idea. Be honest - from what you have said, the theory has given you a deeper understanding of what the bible says.
Once again, I do not believe the theory of evolution proves the bible wrong. It certainly casts doubts as to the correct interpretation. But we have been fighting over that since it was written. I do not think the question of whether there is a god or not will ever be answered all the time there are people who insist there is. I have made up my own mind, using my "free will."
And as for what is taught in schools, it should be "This is the theory of evolution," and "this is the proof for it,"but "there are people who believe a god did it,"
You don't like them? I have learned a lot from hubpages and one of those things is the value of a lot of traffic to a site, regardless of the reason
The topic is in great question. But mostly from people who have taken their education from a 2,000 year old book.
My own personal interpretation of the bible allows for evolution. It also allows for the fact that I do not know many christians. In fact, as I said earlier, christianity is probably the least-subscribed to religion in the world.
More damage than good? Only time will tell.........
And we are talking.
Here you are relying on Moses to translate what God did so everyone can understand.
Here we are relying on Darwin to translate so everyone can understand.
Anyways water came first, so earth (dirt) also sprang from water. I totally understand what you are saying.
A fish is a fish is always a fish. I get it, but what you don't seem to get is that we are saying...
But a fish can grow wings over time according to its needs. It more than likely came with the trait to evolve itself according to its' enviornment. As its means for survival.
Take teeth for example. We (humans) were meant to be herbavoirs, that is what it says in the bible. However, look at our teeth. We do not have teeth that are strickly for chewing vegitation. We evolved to suit our enviornment. It is so slow to change we cannot call it spontanious.
Neither can a factual timeline be placed on the Genisis theory. Only assumptions to the best of our or there understandings.
But if both agree that things change over time, then what is the problem?
So there is only a 2% variable difference in Apes and humans DNA. Who is to say that humans are done evolving or that an Ape is not done evolving? In which case one will die out, possibly the apes and the humanoid (lol) species will prevail.
Sort of like a snake shedding its skin. (I said sorta) It continues to do so until it reaches it fullness and then it dies.
The fossils show evidence of the same species evolving over time.
What you are trying to say is that because there are apes and the are humans then they must be seperate.
I can say that humans come in all shapes and sizes and color and immunities and deficientcies, and over time from the 1st human fossil found to a modern human fossils, there are differences but that does not mean it was something else.
Can you see at all what I am saying.
You do not know that because the Bible said humans, that humans did not make the mistake of calling humans, apes.
Who painted the stripes on a zebra?
When Oprah Winfrey suggested the book called A Course In Miracles to her book club would you say that Oprah evolved from being a Christian to not being a Christian? Or would that be devolved? Or maybe Oprah was never a Christian to start with and was just telling her fans that she was to gain their audience?
Check your history Misha, the Russian Marxist Atheist Revolution first outlawed all religions even the Russian Orthodox. There is still persecution of some religions in Russia.
http://www.amazon.com/Godless-Communist … 0875802575
http://books.google.ca/books?id=IY3DfLf … #PPA101,M1
Call yourselves a monkey's uncle all you want but don't call me one.
I don't need to read the books for that, I lived there at that time. I was born at 1960, right in the midst of communist rule. Yes, communists outlawed all religions, just to replace them with their own version of mummy worship. Kids and students were learning by heart "History of the Communist Party" pretty much like religious people here learn by heart the Bible... The same story - you have to believe what is written there, any attempt to think through it or to question the validity of it, or to try to tie logical ends together is a heresy and deserves at least jail sentence...
At later times they allowed for some development of orthodox church. Most (if not all) of the priests were KGB agents, though...
Oh, and btw it is the Church now who leads the persecution of other religions. Russia now is pretty much Orthodox Republic
I don`t think there is a way that human kind will ever be able to actually prove and explain the process of evolution. Of what I`ve seen lately on news, if anyone got the chance to watch the cat that has grown wings, or the Atlantic flying fish that means there really exist a process of evolution, unfortunately we won`t live to see it in person. As bacteria or viruses install in our bodies and evolve into real illness, the same way people have evolved to suit their needs over the past thousands of years, as what we can notice is that people also tend to have destroying effects against the humanity and the enviroment.
Evolution is some way, really took place as we use computer nowadays, drive cars and wear clothes, things that haven`t happened 100 M years ago. But can anyone prove it?
I constantly read a personal coaching blog, and Steve has proven to have a lot of interesting things that others might want to hear this is one of them, it`s not that I am an atheist, I was born and raised in orthodoxy.
10 Reasons You Should Never Have a Religion
Where exactly in the Bible is this to be found? "were meant to be herbavoirs".
'This thing is called a "Mouse Deer". It is about the size of a cat, has the body and head of a mouse and the legs of a deer. Oh yeah, it has HOOVES.' Claimed to be a transitional species.
Oh okay, thanks Misha. So it sounds like you are saying that the Russian Orthodox Church is much different now than it used to be before the atheist revolution?
Mike, I can't compare first hand - I did not live before the revolution
You didn't? But I thought you were a zombie.
(Thanks for the lovely karma.)
And to Mike:
I find that whether you are teaching evolution or religious doctrine, if the teacher is bigoted there is a chance this bigotry will be passed to the children, if the teacher is not then a wonderful open discussion on the topics can be forthcoming and very enlightening.
It all depends on how the parents and teachers convey information not the information itself that is the issue.
I learned all about the Russian Revolution and the Nazi party. It didn't make me want to become a Communist or kill Jewish people. This is because I wasn't indoctrinated by bigoted teachers, I was simply taught the facts and theories surrounding these events by impartial means, which lead to many open discussions on the subjects.
I was also taught evolution and religion. Neither of which caused me to become an elitist or fanatic. It's all in the delivery not the information itself.
Misha the Russian Orthodox Church is clearly not the same church as it was before the Russian Revolution.
What we are seeing is that communist atheism is being pushed on the people of North America with Darwin's hypothesis of evolution. The 69 thousand dollar question is, is this the start of a communist over throw? It certainly looks like it. I'm not sure if the people that are pushing it are communists or have been innocently lead astray.
Oh, come ON!
Equating atheism with Darwin's theory is bad enough - they are logically unconnected, although there may be some correlation, given that the majority of scientists are at least agnostic.
Darwin and communism?
I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous. Beyond ridiculous. That's paranoia. That's the sort of thing schizophrenics hear voices in their head saying ...
Of course, I wouldn't put it past preachers to string all the bogeys together in a sentence like that as part of their attempts to maintain social control, but intelligent people understand that it not meant to be taken literally.
Why not add "child molester" to the mix, too?
"The Satanist, atheist, communist, Darwinist child molesters are coming ... go home and clean your guns ..."
You don't seriously believe that all Darwinists are also atheists and communists, do you?
Please tell me you know better than that!
I definitely agree to you that the USA is resembling the former USSR more and more, during the years I live here and can watch it from the inside. Similarities are striking, and Orwell's writings are becoming true in this country, too. I even read somewhere that local concentration camps are ready to welcome first occupants. However, I do not attribute this to atheists. And as hard as I try, I don't see any relation to Darwin theory whatsoever.
Mike - whatever you are smoking I want some.
The only people I see pushing communism is the US government. Committing $200 billion of US taxpayers money to bale out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
I don't recall them mentioning Darwin's theory of diminishing property values. Survival of the least over-borrowed.
I guess ignorance is an excuse after all............................
Funny thing about the U.S government. Really if they would have committed $200 billion dollars (or had given the money back to the people) we could have paid off our debts to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Then people could still have thier homes and the bank would have been spared but the U.S will still be in a tremedous deficit which I don't see no matter how good a speaker or thinker is, that this debt will ever go away.
Who pays the price for all the garbage the U.S government buys??? Everyone.
The US military budget for 2009 is around $700,000,000,000.00
The price of being scared.......
The biggest piggy bank in the US is the government. The capitalists are continually raiding the bank, with military industrial
complex as the biggest raiders, slicing out now since 9/11, over half the US budget.
You have to wonder. I mean with a spending power of $1,400 billion.
$700 billion on bullets
$200 billion on bailing out the banks
$15 on health care
Doesn't take a genius to work out that the problem is only just beginning.
Exxon seem to be doing OK though
thanks for breaking those numbers down. lol. So the govenment loves bullets, loves banks and doesn't care much about our health. Yeah, that pretty much somes it up.
Funny thing, I hate bullets, I hate banks and I care about health. WTF! LOLOL
I got to love this one: "A group of community farmers, some of them Amish, are challenging rules requiring the tagging of livestock with RFID chips, saying the devices are a "mark of the beast.".
Well maybe you guys would like to explain why there is such an attack on organized religion, especially Christianity these days when the reasoning behind the attack is bull? Like I have mentioned it has not been God and religions that have caused wars through out history, it has been people that have coveted land and resources.
And why is it that the same people that are making these attacks on organized religion are atheists that are pushing Darwinism? It is not just happening in these Hubpages forums. Why Darwinism now when he wrote the book On the Origin of Species 150 years ago? Could it be because Darwin's hypothesis is also an attack on the Christian God?
Quotes by Christian Rakovsky, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the Ukrainian SSR
“Marxism, before being a philosophical, economic and political system, is a conspiracy for the Revolution.”
“words and facts in Marxism are subject to the strict rules of the higher science: the rules of conspiracy and revolution.”
“The State as such is only power. And money is exclusively power.”
“Moscow is subjective Communism, but [objective] Capitalism. New York: Capitalism subjective, but Communism objective.”
“The Financial International, the Capitalist-Communist one [i.e. Communist International]…”
“Communism,” Rakovsky explains, “cannot be the victor if it will not have suppressed the still-living Christianity…”
Christian Rakovsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Rakovsky
Quotes by Khrushchev
“It matters not that three fourths of the world be destroyed provided that the remaining fourth is Communist.”
“We will bury you…Your grandchildren will be Communist.”
Now tell me how you do not see the similarities between communism and atheists and Darwinists that continually attack organized religion, especially Christianity.
I believe the Taliban has an organized religion. Would you attack them.
Communism and Christianity are twins. Both methods are used by ruling elites to control the population.
the only difference being that the method you speak of is the one intended by communists...a false belief system inspired to control, and Christianity was originally a true belief system inspired to show one how to get out of being controlled by false beliefs
I wasn't around at the time of early Christianity, so I can't really agree or disagree to you.
Mike - all you are doing is persuading us you still do not understand Darwin's theory.
People who have "faith" appear to be blinded by the bleeding obvious. Christianity was a control system written to persuade people to get out from under the ruling class of the day and fall under another control system instead. As was communism.
Roman Empire vs Christianity
Czar/Orthodox Church vs Communism
Zero difference. One used the idea of a god as one of its tools, the other used the idea of no god. Why? Look at the ruling class of the day.
I think they were both started with good intentions and became twisted.
I have never met a real christian. And I doubt there were any real communists.
People who have "faith," also seem to "believe" that all the other control systems are the evil one.
But none of this has anything whatsoever to do with evolution.
Mark why do you insult christianity? what have you got against it? do you still remember me, i told you that you dont want to believe in it because there is no evidence but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
That is basically what I have been asking too. Why do atheists that push Darwinism continually insult Christianity?
No Jenny Charlemagne was a Catholic not an Arian. Maybe you are thinking of Clovis I (466 to 511), 300 years before who eventually converted to the Trinitarian Catholic faith himself too. Arianism is often confused with Aryan people, you know Germanic people like Hitler's Aryan race. Arianism was a doctrine that Arius wrote. It's interesting to note that the people of Iran are not Arabs but are also part of the Aryan family.
The Council of Nicea (250-336) ruled Arianism a heresy although it took about 80 years for it to take in the universal church.
Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
"Arianism, which had been taught by the Arian missionary Ulfilas to the Germanic tribes, was dominant for some centuries among several Germanic tribes in western Europe, especially Goths and Lombards (and significantly for the late Empire, the Vandals), but ceased to be the mainstream belief by the 8th Century AD."
Islam could be seen as the largest descendant of Arianism today. Although Jehovah Witness, Mormons and some spiritualists seem to follow Arianism too.
Jenny we are in a period where history is being rewritten on a daily basis.
One of the advantages of having a written online discussion is the ability to quote what other people have said. Feel free to quote me insulting christianity.
I may have "insulted,' a few christians, but that is an entirely different thing. And the only insult I usually level is:
You do not practice what your religion preaches
You are a great example. If you practiced what Jesus preached, i.e. tolerance, love, understanding and a disdain for the church, you and I would not even be having this conversation.
I started this thread in an attempt to educate ignorant people such as yourself as to what evolution actually is, yet rather than be educated, you choose to attack me and insist that Darwinism is some sort of evil religion opposed to christianity
How very christian of you.........
by thetruthhurts2009 14 years ago
Rules of this forum, no swearing, no straw men arguments and no FSM nonsense. Most importantly remember, Ridicule is not an argument. Enjoy. If want to continue to believe you come from a rocky soup. You can stop reading and leave now, but if you seek the truth you are most welcome to...
by smalika 12 years ago
The paleontologists have found no evidence of the existence of the intermediate creatures that are claimed by Darwin to have existed for the conversion of one animal species to another..
by Nomascus concolor 7 years ago
Is the Darwin's theory of evolution really against what is in the Bible?Is there room for interpretation regarding Adam and Eve and the creation of the world or is it very literal to you?
by ctnahda 10 years ago
Do you personally agree with Darwin's theory of Evolution?
by Rodrigo Sebidos 7 years ago
Is it true that the Biblical account of Creation did HAPPENED?
by fallenangel666 13 years ago
I do not pigeon hole myself as a Creationist, Agnostic or Atheist, but rather as a person who attempts to retain an open mind. Any talk of proof either way is simply delusional. Kurt Godel, the greatest logician who ever lived, prooved beyond doubt, within the strict boundaries of mechanistic...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|