- Mar 23, 2004
- 249,106
- 114,203
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
go back to your 2nd paragraph.....2nd sentence..what do you mean "It was never designed for that purpose....."?
Upvote
0
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.
Originally Posted by brinny
Bottom line is that it is a theory. It has nothing to offer on the origin of life. It falls flat, along with Darwin falling flat on his face.
You've had this explained to you before. You therefore either have the poorest memory on record, or you are deliberately being duplicitous in order to score points.
Evolutionary theory has nothing...NOTHING to say about the origins of life! It was never designed for that purpose, it has NEVER spoken on that purpose!
Your ridiculous charge would be like saying "The theory of gravity has nothing to offer about why there are germs - it falls flat"...!
Evolutionary theory explains why the diversity of life we observe (as fact!) has come about. And it does it perfectly. Despite over 150 years of nervous nellies and religious fundamentalists like yourself trying to poke holes in it, it has stood the test of time. So much so, that it is regarded as THE most well supported theory in all of science! The National Science Academy of the US recently voted it as amongst the top 5 developments in all of science - ever!
Originally Posted by brinny
he used the term intelligent design. He used that term because he was unable to give an answer or "theory" to the origin of life. He was actually nearly stuttering as he spoke it. He seemed to be at a loss.
In your position, I´d be really careful to psychoanalyse other people. It might backfire.
No, not really.you just got a little side-tracked, didn't you?
No, not really.
I guess it is rather difficult to have a clear and objective view of one´s own behaviour... but as an outsider, you can make observations and corresponding conclusions from an independent point of view.
Your observation and conclusion of Dr.Dawkins "behaviour" was that he was "at a loss". You interprete that in a certain way - one that supports your worldview - which may be wrong or right. Considering the alternative explanations for that mentioned scene, I´d say your interpretation is wrong.
But let´s consider your own behaviour. Let´s take post #10 of this thread as an example. Your response to Nathan´s post was "".(Sorry, wrong second smily - I can´t copy/paste them. What experession is this you were using?) I´d say that you were "at a loss". Combined with your comments as "evolution is a theory" and your other empty rethorical responses I conclude that you simply don´t have a clue what you are talking about.
I may be wrong, though I´d say the evidence points in my way. We´d have to go deeper to find out.
And now what does that say about your opinion on Dr. Dawkin´s little interview?
What specific original species have you observed evolving from another species?Things evolve -- we've observed it happening.
The theory of evolution is antiquated and based on Darwin's stunted ideas of cells. He thought cells were simple. Since that time, it has been known that cells are galaxies more complex than Darwin was aware of. Bottom line is that Darwin does not know how life started. Neither does Dawkins.
From your article:
So maybe you could tell me in your own words and also answer my questions.Dogs beget dogs, they never beget cats!
According to Newton and the hypothesis of universal gravitation: God did it!how did gravity start?
This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God ..., Or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God* usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and, by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is everywhere, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and nowhere. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, coexistent parts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and everywhere. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him** are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and everywhere. Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colors, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, nor touched; nor ought he to be worshiped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of anything is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colors, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savors; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.
"Since Newton announced his universal law of gravitation, scientists have accepted and educators taught it, and rarely has it been questioned. Occasionally one has the temerity to say that gravitation is a myth, an invented word to cover scientific ignorance." -- C.H. Kilmer, historian, October 1915opps i guess its a myth.
Originally Posted by Psudopod http://www.christianforums.com/t7424929-4/#post53733365
See here for observed speciation events:
Observed Instances of Speciation
From your article:
Dogs beget dogs, they never beget cats!
So maybe you could tell me in your own words and also answer my questions.
If dogs beget dogs, and cats beget cats, then what is the origin of species?Whats your problem with this?
LOL.As for your questions, theyre irrelevant
Originally Posted by Psudopod http://www.christianforums.com/t7424929-4/#post53733797
What’s your problem with this?
If dogs beget dogs, and cats beget cats, then what is the origin of species?
As for your questions, they’re irrelevant
LOL.
Clever dodge but not persuasive.
What common ancestor between cats and dogs?The common ancestor between cats and dogs.
From your article:
So maybe you could tell me in your own words and also answer my questions.
You asked for species, you got species. "Dogs" and "cats" are not species.
what are species?
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?