Posted on 03/09/2015 6:58:35 AM PDT by Heartlander
None of that has a thing to do with the root of evolutionary though: That species developed from prior (and often different) morphologies and behaviors in such a way that it increased the likelihood of their survival.
Physical evolution is a fact. But it doesn’t mean that we must abandon religion or that it in any way violates religion.
worldview: a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world.
Physical evolution is a fact. But it doesn’t mean that we must abandon religion or that it in any way violates religion.
What part of evolution is fact? Is it this from a college textbook?
Darwin showed that material causes are a sufficient explanation not only for physical phenomena, as Descartes and Newton had shown, but also for biological phenomena with all their seeming evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Together with Marx's materialistic theory of history and society and Freud's attribution of human behavior to influences over which we have little control, Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism…Is it this ‘fact’ from a professor Provine, an American historian of science and of evolutionary biology and population genetics?
-Douglas Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology, p. 5
Or again, this fact from Chuck ‘freakin’ Darwin?Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly.
1) No gods worth having exist.
2) No life after death exists.
3) No ultimate foundation for ethics exists.
4) No ultimate meaning in life exists.
5) Human free will is nonexistent.
- William Provine (from Darwin Day speech)
If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.Beyond this, please produce the rigid mathematical basis for this ‘fact’ so we will have some falsification criteria for this series of mindless mistakes that created all life willy-nilly.
- Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, and Selection in Regard to Sex
"If evolution happened then there is no God, because they can't both be true."
Hmmm... I’m pointing out that evolution has no ultimate purpose - goal - direction - and this totally mindless process created all life - intelligence - morality - consciousness. Evolution has no need of a god or creator. Do you disagree?
I disagree that the knowledge required to state this as fact is within the realm of human cognizance.
In what realm should we look?
What are your choices?
Not my circus - not my monkeys...
If they can't have it both ways and you can't talk them out of believing evolution might have happened, maybe you can talk them out of believing in God.
From the quotes provided evolution has no ultimate purpose - goal - direction - and this totally mindless process created all life - intelligence - morality - consciousness. Evolution has no need of a god or creator. Do you disagree?
The cherry picked quotes provided are the demand to either agree or disagree is nothing more than a carefully loaded question.
If you hand me one of those I'm going to do my best to disassemble it and hand it back to you in pieces without pulling the trigger. If you don't want that done with them, don't hand them to me.
Do it.
You’ll have to find somebody else to jump through your hoops for the privilege of believing in God. I’m not playing.
“What part of evolution is fact?”
There is no amount of physical evidence that will sway you. Seen it a million times.
I’m all done with you.
I've seen a lot of bizarre claims made by creationists, but the "humans aren't animals" line is a new one to me. According to you, what are people then?
Let's try to follow your attempt at logic. You claim that humans are not animals because we can do and understand things that dogs, cats, hamsters, and iguanas cannot. Now, it seems to me that dogs can learn and understand many things that iguanas can't learn and understand. I've never seen anyone's pet lizard retrieve ducks or guard a property. So then, according to your "reasoning", does this mean that dogs are not animals (or is it the other way around, iguanas are not animals)?
You bumped a month-old thread for this?
Came across it while doing a search for another, more recent thread. I wouldn’t have bothered with it, but your comments were so bizarre I couldn’t resist.
[...] your comments were so bizarre I couldn’t resist.
You need to read the back and forth, thread necromancer. And you shouldn’t let supposedly bizarre creationist untermenschen bother you so much.
Otherwise, if you want a real answer, you’ll have to step up.
Must bookmark this now !!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.