Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Primodial Soup
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lucaspa" data-source="post: 1448534" data-attributes="member: 4882"><p>No, it's not. This is from Origin of the Species. Tell us how Darwin says there is no need for a god:</p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.</span></p><p></p><p>What Phantom is saying is that you can accept evoution and <strong>not</strong> be an atheist. Funny thing for an atheist to say, wouldn't you say? After all, by your logic, Phantom should be telling you that evolution shows that God is not necessary. Instead, we have a <strong>Christian</strong> -- you -- telling us that!</p><p> </p><p>The irony meter is pegging again!</p><p> </p><p>What Phantom is telling you is a paraphrase of what St. Augustine of Hippo said in 400 AD. Saying ridiculous things about science -- which is what you are doing, Napa -- drives people away from Christianity. Christians are supposed to rebuke such "incompetent expounders of scripture". Consider yourself rebuked, Napa. </p><p> </p><p>Isn't it ironic that Phantom knows more about Christian traditions than you do, Napa?</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Oh, no. There are transitional species of semi-land animal and aquatic animal. In fact, you don't even need the fossil record to find those. Look at seals.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Nope. It turns out that this is another creationist misrepresentation. <strong>If</strong> there were oxygen present, it was only about 0.1% (compared to the 20% today). That is still a reducing atmosphere. </p><p> </p><p>BTW, in another thread I showed how Wells overlooked more recent experiments by Miller that make statements like these look very stupid.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lucaspa, post: 1448534, member: 4882"] No, it's not. This is from Origin of the Species. Tell us how Darwin says there is no need for a god: [font=Arial]"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450. Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.[/font] What Phantom is saying is that you can accept evoution and [b]not[/b] be an atheist. Funny thing for an atheist to say, wouldn't you say? After all, by your logic, Phantom should be telling you that evolution shows that God is not necessary. Instead, we have a [b]Christian[/b] -- you -- telling us that! The irony meter is pegging again! What Phantom is telling you is a paraphrase of what St. Augustine of Hippo said in 400 AD. Saying ridiculous things about science -- which is what you are doing, Napa -- drives people away from Christianity. Christians are supposed to rebuke such "incompetent expounders of scripture". Consider yourself rebuked, Napa. Isn't it ironic that Phantom knows more about Christian traditions than you do, Napa? Oh, no. There are transitional species of semi-land animal and aquatic animal. In fact, you don't even need the fossil record to find those. Look at seals. Nope. It turns out that this is another creationist misrepresentation. [b]If[/b] there were oxygen present, it was only about 0.1% (compared to the 20% today). That is still a reducing atmosphere. BTW, in another thread I showed how Wells overlooked more recent experiments by Miller that make statements like these look very stupid. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Primodial Soup
Top
Bottom