Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
False.--- invented by man
--- in order to exclude God from his life.
Dr Henry M. Morris III
ICR.ORG
True/False ?
False.
Next.
--- invented by man
--- in order to exclude God from his life.
Dr Henry M. Morris III
ICR.ORG
True/False ?
ToE was invented by man but the fact that things evolve has very little to do with man.My you are very confident! Is your conclusion based on evidence? - what evidence do you base this upon ?
Do you really WANT to know the answer?
I don't think so.
ToE was invented by man but the fact that things evolve has very little to do with man.
Many Christians have no issue with ToE so it cannot be an attempt to sideline the role of the Christian god (or at least an attempt to sideline God that has any merit).
I'd go as far to say that the only people who think it sidelines God are Biblical literalists.
Most other folks are getting on with their lives.
If I were out to invent a scientific theory that excludes God from man´s life, I certainly wouldn´t invent a theory that is in conflict merely with the god concept of one particular extremist religious fringe group.
This again?
Tbh, I don´t know how many people believed that God had literally hand-crafted A&E, or honestly took Genesis as a factual report that needed to be read literally, back when Darwin coined his hypothesis/theory.Is it not also true that such a fringe group probably didn't even exist at the time ?
--- invented by man
--- in order to exclude God from his life.
Dr Henry M. Morris III
ICR.ORG
....
Seeing how Christianity had updated its god concepts due to scientific findings countless times before (yes, it always had taken a while...), it would still be naive for Darwin to believe that this wouldn´t happen here, too.
It has a sort of a Richard Dawkins type style to it, thin on evidence
Evolution is a physical process (actually a long series of physical processes) that humans observe occurring in nature. We put a label on these processes in order to more easily conceptualise them.
Evolution is no more invented by man than gravity, electromagnetism, radioactive decay, general relativity or quantum mechanics were invented by man. It is a description of an aspect of reality.
Neither Darwin's On the Origin of Species or Wallace's On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type make any reference to evolution in mankind and the only mention of God is in the dedications.
The fact that the theory of evolution has bearing on the creation myths of some religions has no bearing on the actual scientific theory itself. The purpose of which was to provide a framework that better explains the observed facts of nature.
Is a flim-flam artist who went into the professional reality-denial business that was started by his father. ICR is equal parts apologetics ministry and fund raising exercise first and second, and a research organisation a long, long way third.
It has been reduced to publishing "peer reviewed" articles in its own "journals" and those run by other creationist organisations, and putting out books through the vanity press.
I'm not a Dawkins fan (you could probably call me a detractor), but really, thin on evidence? Dawkins has publishing credits on better than 50 peer reviewed articles and more than a dozen popular science books to his credit. Not to mention his popular media writing, and the hundreds of hours of documentaries and television shows, public speaking and debates on the topic.
When your evidence is that "thin", then you can call him out.
I think if the original versions of the idea are expressed by someone who isn't anti-God and scientists who aren't anti-God work and expand on it to this day, it's impossible to conclude that its purpose is anti-God.Hi Shemjaza,
Isn't the question a more general one '....invented by man....', rather than by Darwin. I mean we are many years along since his pioneering work?
Jimmy,
A quick read through the Objections to Evolution > Evidence*, provides the following stanza, relative to : '....As biologists define macroevolution, both microevolution and macroevolution have been observed. ....' **/***
*- Objections to evolution - Wikipedia
**- Isaak, Mark, ed. (April 16, 2004). "Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CB901: No Macroevolution". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2015-03-31. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented. Published as Isaak 2007, pp. 87–88
***- Dawkins 2010, pp. 110–
Maybe you shouldn't read so quickly. You can often miss things that way. From my post:
. . .which is all of the argument one needs to dispel the myth of macro evolution as an explanation for the origin of life (or anything else in the material universe). . .
Okay, I am little confused by your earlier comments --- I'll need to rethink this
Sorry about that
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?