How about you show me where they share common traits.
they dont .
Facts aren't things to be believed. They are things to be acknowledged.yes ,fully , i just don't believe you- there you have it .
Intelligent Design and Creationism are two different things.
Even if Darwinian evolution is true we still need an explanation for the initial cause of the irreducibly complex biological life
The fact that science cannot yet explain that is telling.
Lets say biological life is like a jack in the box(irreducibly complex). Evolution is not responsible for the function of the jack in the box, but it could be thought of as the process of the jack in the box popping open and changing from one form to another.
The real question here is who or what is responsible for the function of the jack in the box, regardless of whether or not Darwinian evolution is true or not?
It seems Darwinian evolutionists would rather ignore this all important question because it actually has nothing to do with their theory.
You may have missed my point. My point is that whether or not evolution is true has no bearing on God being responsible for biological life.
IOW, He is the initial causer regardless if evolution took place or not.
You say "nonsense." So, Social Darwinists didn't utilize an adaptation of Darwin's theory to promulgate their social schlock?
You've got to be kidding! This is silly. I'm here in your thread to discuss the veracity of the Theory of Evolution, and you want to turn this into a debate about semantics. Really?
Again, here's what I wrote back in post #96. Did you read all of this? Notice the words I've placed in BOLD:
You say "nonsense." So, Social Darwinists didn't utilize an adaptation of Darwin's theory to promulgate their social schlock? Germans/Nazi's didn't re-appropriate (or reconstrue) Darwin's ideas so as to buttress their own Aryan notions of superiority? Karl Marx didn't dedicate some of his work about Communism to Darwin or see the development of politics as an evolutionary process of a kind?
None of these kinds of things happened?
Furthermore, I'm not saying that the ToE led to murder ... but it did almost immediately catalyze a diversity of new social ideas based on it, one of which is still around (i.e. Communism). [Correction: I guess we unfortunately still have some skin-head types around too.]
It doesn't matter at all what "social darwinists" did or didn't do.
It has no relation whatsoever with the truth value or accuracy of the biological theory of evolution.
Let me be a little more clear with my thoughts on this.
This did not start out to be a conspiracy by man/Darwin, however it is a conspiracy by Satan.
Not sure who here made the claim but Atheists love the "science proves nothing" line, but fact is, you are correct with you rat dissection, it proved beyond a doubt, all you said it did.
Yet the Atheist or even evolutionists, because they need what they say to be a fact in order to further their agenda, will argue there is no proof available through science still.
This particular claim makes me laugh as much as them changing definitions to fit their needs.
Like I always say: Atheists say the darnedest things.
1)Satan exists because the bible says he exists
, and if it surprises you to hear that on a Christian forum, then maybe you need to step back and consider what a Christian forum is about.
This is just the same junk y'all keep throwing out there...unproven fairy tale hype that sounds good to someone who is easily impressed
The Alternative, of course, is not a suggestion, it's a fact in my view... God did it.
What exactly did you expect? For me to suddenly change my religion? For me to suddenly go rock dumb and buy into what you people continue to push? Did you think you had something so complicated, I'd be awe stricken? Or figure if I didn't understand it, that would mean, "you showed me"?
Created or just happened?
Your way sounds absolutely ridiculous to me, and the Biblical way makes perfect sense.
Why do people believe your way?
Yes that has to be taken into consideration to. In many if not most cases, because they for whatever reason, would rather not acknowledge a God...the agenda I mentioned earlier.
In the end the choice is overwhelmingly simple to me.
Of course, the fact that Social Darwinists misappropriated Darwin's theory has little to do with the biological fact of evolution itself.
Indeed.
Which is exactly why I feel it is irrelevant what underlying point was being made.
In a discussion about the validity of biological evolution, there is no context in which those topics are relevant.
It's true that people use and abuse ideas to their own ends, often resulting in great evil; religion is the canonical example of that - so what?Am I not saying that Darwin's Theory of Evolution caused "evil," not all by itself. But, it did play a part in a large confluence of social influences in the world, not the least of which was seen later in the Nazi propaganda of the World War II era, as well as in the structure of thought which Marx gave to his Communist theory, and to which Lenin and Stalin heartily applied.
It's true that people use and abuse ideas to their own ends, often resulting in great evil; religion is the canonical example of that - so what?
You do realise that, by answering those very questions and more, that the scientific process has arrived at our current understanding?
Now, if you have additional/alternative evidence which would provide a different understanding, you should present it....!
Never proof, only provisional confirmation and subject to disproof at any time as a consequence of new data. That's how science works.We're here all right, and how late to the party? How many years
did they believe the tonsils, appendix and other 'vestigial' organs
were useless? How many still believe in the fiction of 'junk' DNA?
Never proof, because all of it is fiction based on fantasy.
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?