Posted on 11/04/2009 8:25:01 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Darwin’s bulldog—Thomas H. Huxley
--snip--
Huxley, although an unbeliever, was thoroughly familiar with the gospel, and had little time for Christians who compromised their position by supporting the anti-biblical belief of evolutionary naturalism. He wrote: ...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
It doesn't come close to what Martin Luther said about Jews.
Evolutionary biology is the truth observed in nature. How some people may misinterpret it, doesn't make it any less true.
“I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.”
Aldous Huxley: Ends and Means, pp. 270 ff.
Darwin has said stuff just as damning, but it’s all good to the evos because he opposed slavery.
LOL.
Why would any of your atheist buddies be offended by your references to them copping out, quitting, comparable (in many cases) to reprehensible criminals, child rapists and murderers, and empty people?
Why that would be like Christians being offended if someone were to reference them as arrogant, bigoted, self-righteous people totally full of themselves. And we know that never happens either.
That’s why I said, “No offense intended to my atheist buddies.”
But the rest of my post is after years and years of careful study and, albeit gently, I’ve informed my buddies of the findings I found.
The best of atheists just wants to deny the judge. The rest are incorrigible.
What did your studies turn up?
What did Martin Luther say about the Jews?
Evolution has NOT been observed. There are NO intermediary life forms shown. Adaptation has been observed. This is what Darwin observed, and the basis for his THEORY that adaptation would lead, over time to a change from one type of animal into another.
But that form change is NOT what can be found. Eohippus was a horse, small though it may have been. The descendants of Eohippus are STILL horses to this day, not pigs, or platypi.
I have yet to perfect what you have obviously overcome with your years of careful study on the subject - how to get colleagues and acquaintances, much less complete strangers, to discuss their atheism, and then have enough time to delve deeply into their heads to determine whether they want to deny the judge or are simply incorrigible.
I have known two people (both worked for the CIA incidentally) who are absolutely expert at getting others to open up about things they ordinarily would not discuss.
I admire that you have this quality as well, such that it has given you enough of a sample size to determine that only these 2 possibilities exist - deny the judge or incorrigible. It’s quite impressive.
Gumby,
You are applying the simplest mistake in definitions. Darwin was right in his basic premise. Note the title of his work “Origin of Species.” He discerned that speciation was the result of niche, isolation and competition. Key in here closely - darwinian evolution examines changes in a SPECIES over time. You Eohippus to modern horse is a nice example. Thank you for bringing it up. Note his book is not titled “Origin of Genus” or “Origin of Phylum.”
Thank you for the compliment.
It’s only with sadness that I report my findings. I like to think that atheists are basically like you and me but that they do not believe in any God.
I had a friend who proclaimed his atheism and he was a very funny guy. I trusted him too. But he somehow got ahold of my banking information and decided to help himself to the acct balance then he left. I never heard from him again.
So, I continued my studies. And I’m still studying.
But don’t you notice the pattern? The absence of belief certainly frees up man’s worst instincts and leaves those instincts free to do as they please. Notwithstanding the callous, vicious sociopathic murderer, but even the ordinary man who renounces his belief (and by default his allegiance) to doing the right thing.
For whatever reason, I have tons of atheists friends and they all find me to be an amusing and cool guy.
You just reminded me of one of my old professors many decades ago. He once told the class the dangers of generalization. He said that you can determine the worth of a paper by the breadth of it’s conclusion. Usually the smaller the sample size the broader the conclusion. Any thesis including a single broad generalization went straight into the trash.
The parents of a hybrid species would be intermediary, or transitional by definition.
Of course, what you mean by an intermediary is probably a strawman anyway.
Yet evolution backers insist that those early horses could change species. That is my point, there is no evidence of one species changing to another. Adaptation is not evolution.
“For whatever reason, I have tons of atheists friends and they all find me to be an amusing and cool guy.”
“But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.” 1 Corinthians 5:11
Who ever said horses didn’t change species? Of course they did. But they remained the genus Equus.
http://en.mimi.hu/horse/genus.html
A hybrid is not a transitional animal. I can breed my striped california kingsnake with my florida king and get hybrids. Not only are these hybrids still kingsnakes, they are still snakes, with no characteristics leading them to be anything else except kingsnakes.
No strawman here
I said the parents of the hybrid species are transitional. And not all hybrids are new species.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
It does not say that the animals were brought forth to change into things not of their kind. SOmething that was not a horse did not change into a horse.
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.