Skip to comments.Evolution vs God - Watch if for Free today
Posted on 08/08/2013 12:21:36 PM PDT by Lucky9teen
Evolution vs God: 36 HOURS = 61,000 VIEWS!! 5k COMMENTS
When posting about "Evolution vs God" on Facebook or Twitter please include the tag (# -- the pound sign / hashtag) at the beginning of your post: #evolutionvsgod. If you do this others will be able to immediately search using #evolutionvsgod on FB or Twitter and see all the posts that are being made about the movie.
WATCH IT FREE ->
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionvsgod.com ...
OK - I’ll bite... provide a link to the free viewing of the movie.
A false dichotomy.
More precise is the sentence ... Millions know that Darwinian Evolution is a scientific fact.
Recommended reading ... "Darwin's Ghost" by Steve Jones
One review of Jones' book states ...
"This is a delightful book, infused with wit and panache, and as enthralling in its own way as was Darwin's original ... Wonderfully conceived and gloriously executed."
Another review states ...
"An inspiring argument supporting the theory of evolution."
Another states ...
"A richly readable introduction to the science that The Origin of Species invented."
In short ...
Beliefs belong in church.
I thought God planted the living organism that evolved.
Maybe it’s not evolution but just natural developmental growth stages of the soul. It’s not evolution when an acorn grows into an oak tree, except maybe from the perspective of the acorn that knows not what lies ahead.
Nurture vs Nature may be just Nurture vs Prior Nurture if one believes in reincarnation!
PS... & I actually watched the entire thing.
Actually, no. Or if they do -- they have things a bit askew if they think they "know" that a theory (no matter how valid --or not) is a "fact".
Facts never grow up into being theory. Theories come about as methodology of explanation for observable fact.
During the process of forming theory, one should be aware of, and keep close track of assumptions, and the basis for having made the assumptions. Or else it is or becomes loose "science", with theorizing mistaken for being "fact", such as you have done, grammatically.
Please take careful notice that here I have not ventured anywhere beyond word usage. Yet the words we chose to describe a thing are important, for words, their definitions and usage form our thoughts, becoming basis for opinion.
That reminds me of some relevant gibberish from Bertrand Russell ...
"Don't be so sure - nobody can be certain of anything."
Well, if that your belief
Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
The time has come to take seriously the fact that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day. In particular, we must recognize our biological past in trying to understand our interactions with others. We must think again especially about our so-called ethical principles. The question is not whether biologyspecifically, our evolutionis connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no [ethical] justification of the traditional kind is possible.
Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in Gods will . In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding. Like Macbeths dagger, it serves a powerful purpose without existing in substance.
Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place.
- Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson, The Evolution of Ethics
Aristotle's ethics most definitely has an objective reference. It's unfortunate that Aristotle's non-deceptive Ethics isn't taught in schools.
Do tell more about Aristotle’s Prime Mover - your ‘belief’ from this man in non-deceptive objective ethics - and how it should be taught in schools ...
the naturalist believes that beneath every natural phenomenon there exists yet another natural phenomenon. If explanation by reference to an endless stack of large turtles is silly, then an explanation by reference to an endless stack of natural phenomena would be equally so. The naturalist's answer for the origin of life, therefore, is some natural phenomenon. (Which one is not particularly relevant.) When you ask them how that natural phenomenon came to be, their response boils down to: "It's natural phenomena all the way down!"
All I saw was someone asking people on the street if they were atheists and other questions regarding atheism.
Is there more to it than that because I won’t watch over an hour of that kind of stuff?
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.