Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

[Phenotype]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (4)"

 

[Davian]

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[theophilus777]

What, you're both in a rush to be in before the flush? Now where were we ... oh yes, the christian atheists need to consult us before they can use the name. There are royalties to be paid you know

And now we know Davian joins us in not particularly agreeing with polling information, but that more folks believe in UFOs than Jesus just proves the point of why Darwinism is so dangerous.

What is panetheism? Pantheism I know, and panentheism, but ...

(Davian you can both miss that reference and concoct a new genetic tree for the evolution of panetheism)

 

[Loudmouth]

And now we know Davian joins us in not particularly agreeing with polling information, but that more folks believe in UFOs than Jesus just proves the point of why Darwinism is so dangerous.

Why don't you blame Heliocentrism instead?

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What, you're both in a rush to be in before the flush? Now where were we ... oh yes, the christian atheists need to consult us before they can use the name.
There are royalties to be paid you know

First I have ever heard of that until now

Christian atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christian atheism is a theological position in which the belief in the God of Christianity is rejected or absent but the moral teachings of Jesus are followed.
Christian atheism is related to Jesuism, the Christian theological-philosophical movement named for its understanding of Jesus as a simple teacher of morals, in direct contrast to traditional Christianity, which claims that Jesus is divine.

Protestantism

In the Netherlands, 42% of the members of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PKN) are nontheists.[6] Furthermore, in the PKN and several other smaller denominations of the Netherlands, 1 in 6 clergy are either agnostic or atheist.[7] A minister of the PKN, Klaas Hendrikse has described God as "a word for experience, or human experience" and said that Jesus may have never existed.

Roman Catholic

Catholic atheism is a belief in which the culture, traditions, rituals, and norms of Catholicism are accepted, but the existence of God is rejected. It is illustrated in Miguel de Unamuno's novel San Manuel Bueno, Mártir (1930). According to research in 2007, only 27% of Catholics in the Netherlands considered themselves theist, while 55% were ietsist or nontheist, and 17% were agnostic...........

The vast majority of the Catholic population in the Netherlands is now largely irreligious in practice.[6]...................



.

 

[Davian]

What, you're both in a rush to be in before the flush? Now where were we ... oh yes, the christian atheists need to consult us before they can use the name. There are royalties to be paid you know

God needs money. Lots of money.

And now we know Davian joins us in not particularly agreeing with polling information, but that more folks believe in UFOs than Jesus just proves the point of why Darwinism is so dangerous.

To be fair, "Darwinism" is not actually dangerous. To be dangerous, gods - your God - would need to be real. That has not been demonstrated yet.

What is panetheism? Pantheism I know, and panentheism, but ...

(Davian you can both miss that reference and concoct a new genetic tree for the evolution of panetheism)

I don't claim to understand it. Wiki says "In panentheism, the universe in the first formulation is practically the whole itself. In the second formulation, the universe and the divine are not ontologically equivalent. In panentheism, God is viewed as the eternal animating force behind the universe. Some versions suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifest part of God. In some forms of panentheism, the cosmos exists within God, who in turn "transcends", "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that 'All is God', panentheism goes further to claim that God is greater than the universe. In addition, some forms..."

 

[theophilus777]

Why don't you blame Heliocentrism instead?

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

Yes, because the RCC of 1615 is so relevant now ...

 

[theophilus777]

To be fair, "Darwinism" is not actually dangerous. To be dangerous, gods - your God - would need to be real. That has not been demonstrated yet.

So your poll results showing more folks believe in UFO's than Jesus is what, a boon to psycho-therapists everywhere?

Wiki says "In panentheism

As I suspected, it was just a case of sloppy spelling. You never intended panetheism, as distinct from panentheism or pantheism. Just checking

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, because the RCC of 1615 is so relevant now ...

It is just as relevant as the creation science from the 1950's that you continue to push.

 

[justlookinla]

It is just as relevant as the creation science from the 1950's that you continue to push.

Some are pushing an atheistic creationist view from the 1800s.

 

[Loudmouth]

Some are pushing an atheistic creationist view from the 1800s.

The philosophy of justlookinlaism is from the 1800's?

 

[theophilus777]

It is just as relevant as the creation science from the 1950's that you continue to push.

I don't push creation science, but it would be nice if you guys would at least recognize that your version of creation science (from the 1950's no less, the Miller-Ulrey experiment) is how ToE got accepted into schools, on the false premise that life had been created in the test tube. As 46&2 correctly stated, that is preposterous. And yet, that's what happened.

This is only one of many mistakes in our Nation where if we had just slowed down a bit, things could've been done much better. We're paying for that now; in this case, via blowback on the science curriculum.

 

[theophilus777]

Some are pushing an atheistic creationist view from the 1800s.

 

[justlookinla]

The philosophy of justlookinlaism is from the 1800's?

No, the inherently atheistic creationist philosophy of Darwinism is from the 1800s. It's a relatively new addition.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't push creation science, but it would be nice if you guys would at least recognize that your version of creation science

It isn't creation science.

(from the 1950's no less, the Miller-Ulrey experiment) is how ToE got accepted into schools,

The Miller-Urey experiments have NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. How many times does it need to be repeated? The acceptance of evolution was due to observations made in biogeography, genetics, fossils, island endemism, and a whole host of other areas of evidence. It had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MILLER-UREY EXPERIMENT.

This is why we can't take you seriously. You have no idea what you are talking about.

on the false premise that life had been created in the test tube.

No one ever claimed that the Miller-Urey experiment had created life in a test tube. That is your fantasy alone.

This is only one of many mistakes in our Nation where if we had just slowed down a bit, things could've been done much better. We're paying for that now; in this case, via blowback on the science curriculum.

We have had 150 years of scientific research to think on, and it all points to evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, the inherently atheistic creationist philosophy of Darwinism is from the 1800s. It's a relatively new addition.

That is not Darwinism. That is justlookinlaism.

 

[Davian]

So your poll results showing more folks believe in UFO's than Jesus is what, a boon to psycho-therapists everywhere?

Exactly. I am on their payroll. Although, those promised cheques are long overdue...

As I suspected, it was just a case of sloppy spelling.

I'm guessing that this is a case of sloppy reading.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by theophilus777

So your poll results showing more folks believe in UFO's than Jesus is what, a boon to psycho-therapists everywhere?
​

Exactly. I am on their payroll. Although, those promised cheques are long overdue...

This thread is long overdue to destruct............4,019 posts!



.

 

[theophilus777]

This is why we can't take you seriously.

*shudder* This raises the scary thought that you actually think anyone takes you seriously here? The only reason I even look at this section is to see you get so wound up you no longer make sense. Its a regular occurrence.

And then you claim yours is not a religion?