Posted on 09/07/2009 10:41:31 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Your perceptions of Christianity clearly indicate to normal peole you're just flat out being robbed and abused and misused! Someone has you right where they want you by all your bitterness on display here! Where does it come from? Did you say something about being a former Christian? What happened?
Here's a clue...when Hitler read scriptures to the masses at Nuremberg...he indeed had a Bible in front of him, but no Holy Spirit guidance.
Are you familiar with the Holy Spirit?
See, the Holy Spirit wasn't involved in leading people to burn others at the stake...sorry.
You owe it to yourself to at least wind up with the determination of a 7 year old girl and swing back! You might just surprise yourself! IN FACT with the Holy Spirit, you'd hit it out of the park!
Really?! Whatever Darwin said in 1882 (or earlier), near 130 years later it’s obvious that Berkeley thinks that theories of the origin of life are informed and infused by Darwin’s ToE, and that Dawkins now believes, and Marx then believed that a naturalistic explanation for life was sufficiently assured that they felt secure in declaring that there is no God. A considerable number of Dawkins’ colleagues apparently believe similarly. If you have a problem with that, you can always do an 0bama and throw the lot under the bus.
No. I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm sure it's just my CRS Syndrome acting up.
No, it's obvious that Berkeley thinks theories of the origin of life are of possible interest to people studying evolution. Just like methods of radiometric dating and stratigraphic analysis, both of which are handled in the exact same "for further reading" way and neither of which are "informed and infused" by the ToE.
Yeah, probably...I suffer from it too. ;)
It was a discussion about evolution disowning any relationship whatsoever to origins...and I made the analogy of bridge-building...as if the span being bridged had no input whatsoever in the bridge building process.
I argued it was necessary, you argued it wasn't.
It's probably been at least 2-3 months ago now, but I'm too behind on my nurses notes right now to go dig it up.
It's hell getting old...just came from my father-in-law's birthday...well not party, but you know...
anyway, better him than me!
LOL!
No doubt Berkeley thinks any number of lines of study help “illuminate” the study of Evolution, but no others are accorded the special treatment Berkeley’s “Evolution 101” website gives the origin of life. Quoting from the website: “However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.” I don’t see where radiometric dating or any other subject is described “within the field of evolutionary biology” as is the origin of life.
Under the heading from soup to cells – the origin of life, we see a whole array of topics for inspection: 1)When did life originate? 2) Where did life originate? 3) How did life originate? 4) Under Studying the origin of life (itself making reference to “the tree of life”), we have; Origins and DNA evidence, Origins and biochemical evidence, Origins and experimental evidence, then 5) A knotty problem.
At this point from soup to cells – the origin of life continues with the following, “You've reached the end of this section, but if you'd like to continue reading about the relevance of evolution (emphasis mine), try these:” (giving some links)
Every institution tailors its message for its targeted audience. That’s a normal and expected practice. The basic language used here indicates Berkeley intended their message to be for a younger audience, and they are saying something different than they might be saying to a more mature audience. Deal with it.
Radiometric dating and stratigraphy aren't biology, so they wouldn't be described that way. But my point is that the whole "from soup to cells" section is arrived at by clicking "take a side trip" on the main history of life page. There actually seems to be two different ways of getting to those pages, depending on where you start. Maybe the other one's for teachers? Anyway, there it's called "explore further", and you don't get to it by clicking Next Page. In both cases, it's clearly considered a sidelight to the main story of evolution.
Yes, of course, the “main story” of evolution is, well, duh . . . evolution. However , origin of life can hardly be considered a “sidelight” of evolution, it seems to me. Origin of life is more accurately, I think, a logical corollary of the ToE. This is why I say that the origin of life, as we understand it today, is informed and infused by the ToE. This insight is what got Marx all excited. This is what stokes Dawkins’ furnace (and that of many another). The ToE gives (gave) them all reason to believe in the validity of a naturalistic explanation for life necessary to declare the nonexistence of God (O Happy Day!).
This whole controversy has never been anything other than a political struggle for dominance. There are two (related) ways for the Darwinian Mullahs to win. Either convince a majority of the people that there is a naturalistic explanation for Everything, or take back their sovereignty so that what they think doesn’t matter. Either way is a prolonged process requiring that not too much be given away too soon.
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.