1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe fact is many Christians recognise evolution to be the reason for the diversification of life on this planet, why and how they compliment this with scripture is for them to tell you, not me. Theology isn't my bag.
Lol, so a Christian who disowns the teaching of the Christ and supplants it with something else is a what. . . . an apostate! and not a Christian at all.
Your second point is not a spiritual reason in any shape or form. Why dont you admit it ol thing, there is no spiritual basis as to why a Christian should accept the teaching. I mean, it makes ...[text shortened]... nce to you either way, come let us condemn them! They are worse than materialists, well almost!
But your view that evolution = materialism = atheism = bad, is still mute as there are many people who are not Christians who recognise evolution as compatible with their religious beliefs .
Originally posted by Proper Knobi say they are not Christians, nor can they be. I really do think materialism is empty, yes its true. I do not think that Atheists are bad, in fact i have consistently stated that there are many atheists who exhibit a spirituality, although they deny a divine element.
The fact is many Christians recognise evolution to be the reason for the diversification of life on this planet, why and how they compliment this with scripture is for them to tell you, not me. Theology isn't my bag.
But your view that evolution = materialism = atheism = bad, is still mute as there are many people who are not Christians who recognise evolution as compatible with their religious beliefs .
4 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatIn all honesty i have not, i was caught up in the melee of having to condemn and hand over to Satan those Christians who have accepted the theory. Yes i have looked now, as i suspected, it relies on the definition of species, it sites a mouse, which remained a mouse, Ciclids , which remained fish etc That is merely diversity within a species which i do not deny.
You keep saying that - did you follow that link I provided which details several?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDecades are a very short time span for evolution of new species.
yes, of course, i quote him, would you accept some creationist site, i think not. As to the actual details of the experiment, i am not entirely sure, although the experiments were carried on for decades. No New Species!
Have you actually read the book you cite or are you just quoting from a quote in a creationist site?
Originally posted by PalynkaYes, i understand that, however, they were subject to specific criteria which altered the genetic make-up in order to produce aberration, in an attempt to mimic what is speculated to have happened through 'natural processes'. No I have not read the book i am merely citing the quote from one of our publications.
Decades are a very short time span for evolution of new species.
Have you actually read the book you cite or are you just quoting from a quote in a creationist site?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOk, but we would need to read a bit about what criteria they were subject to before we jump to conclusions.
Yes, i understand that, however, they were subject to specific criteria which altered the genetic make-up in order to produce aberration, in an attempt to mimic what is speculated to have happened through 'natural processes'. No I have not read the book i am merely citing the quote from one of our publications.
2 edits
Originally posted by RBHILL“...How could you not believe in intelligent design after watching this? ...”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fiJupfbSpg
How could you not believe in intelligent design after watching this?
To not believe in intelligent design you are Ignorant, Stupid, Insane, and Wicked.
answer; by understanding what evolution is.
“....To not believe in intelligent design you are Ignorant, Stupid, Insane, and Wicked. ...”
why so?
Such complexity is exactly what is expected from evolution (which is not to be confused with abiogenesis). Evolution does not impose any upper limit of complexity it can create.
The first protocell would have needed none of that complexity. Then evolution took over and added one bit of that complexity at a time.
If you don't understand these very simple facts then it is you who is ignorant.
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobI am one of these you describe as being Christian and yet accepting evolution.
but it's not as simple as that is it? There are millions, if not hundreds of millions, of people who believe in God and accept evolution, theistic evolution is it's name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
Your organisation doesn't accept evolution, but there are countless people who do within the Christian faith and other religions worldwide. Let's not tarnish them all with them same brush.
Yes, the concept is called "Theistic Evolution", but I prefer "Evolutionary Creation".
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/evolutionary_creation.pdf
You may think the difference is minor, but it is important and is explained in this article (don't worry, it's right there on page 1, no need to delve into the specifics of the theory itself).
Interestingly, the graph that is labeled "Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution" shows JW's at the bottom with only 8% agreeing that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth. I have to put myself in the "Unaffiliated" category (even though I am Anglican [Episcopalian]) whereas 72% of the "unaffiliated" category agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh please, Robbie, do not lower yourself to the level of Vishva/Dasa, condemning those who do not agree with YOUR opinions.
In all honesty i have not, i was caught up in the melee of having to condemn and hand over to Satan those Christians who have accepted the theory. Yes i have looked now, as i suspected, it relies on the definition of species, it sites a mouse, which remained a mouse, Ciclids , which remained fish etc That is merely diversity within a species which i do not deny.
Educate yourself and follow the link I presented above on Evolutionary Creation.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFor someone who doesn't accept situation ethics (lying), you seem to do it rather a lot.
“The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity.” - Dobzhansky
Quoted in Heredity and the Nature of Man, p. 126.
You have posted that quote before, and I have point out out previously that the quote does not equate to your claim:
Shall i direct you towards drosophila (fruit fly experiments), where literally tens of thousands of attempts were made to establish a new species through mutation, result, in each and every instance the mutated fly was inferior to the parent. No new species!
So you cannot claim to have not noticed the difference.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSadly we will have to admit that in this case Richard Dawkins was right. You are ignorant. You don't even know the difference between a 'species' and rather less specific categories like 'mouse', 'ciclids' and 'fish'.
In all honesty i have not, i was caught up in the melee of having to condemn and hand over to Satan those Christians who have accepted the theory. Yes i have looked now, as i suspected, it relies on the definition of species, it sites a mouse, which remained a mouse, Ciclids , which remained fish etc That is merely diversity within a species which i do not deny.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“....Shall i direct you towards drosophila (fruit fly experiments), where literally tens of thousands of attempts were made to establish a new species through mutation, result, in each and every instance the mutated fly was inferior to the parent. No new species! ...”
sorry, but the transition was soooo not happening you had to invent a theory to counterbalance the anomalies, its termed punctuated equilibrium, and indeed we find this type of reasoning throughout the hypothesis. Its pure metaphysics, nothing more. Shall i direct you towards drosophila (fruit fly experiments), where literally tens of thousands of ...[text shortened]... ed in to another futile debate about the incongruities of your metaphysical theory, think again!
what experiments? Please show us a web-link to these experiments to create a new species -I for one have never heard of them!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThey are examples of speciation according to the accepted definition of the word 'species'. To request examples of the evolution of a new genus or family within the few hundred years since we began to classify the natural world is, I think, extraordinarily impatient, to say the least!
In all honesty i have not, i was caught up in the melee of having to condemn and hand over to Satan those Christians who have accepted the theory. Yes i have looked now, as i suspected, it relies on the definition of species, it sites a mouse, which remained a mouse, Ciclids , which remained fish etc That is merely diversity within a species which i do not deny.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHere in the US the promotion of one religions' creation story, in deference to any other religions' version, in the public school system is not allowed by law. Your religious beliefs and attitude are misguided. If, as you state, Darwinism is "pure materialism" then it is an economic system akin to Capitalism. Again, you are misguided. Darwinism is not religion, it is science.
So it promotes religious ideas, big deal! Darwinism promotes pure materialism which is practically useless, empty and deviod and forced upon those of a religious disposition which they may find equally as ludicrous and heinous.