Does Darwinism Equal "No God"?

OK, I get that. I'm just curious--do you believe in the concept of the Fall?

Way too far Off Topic.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I was adding on to your question to faith.

I figured so. Was really hoping for a response.

Actually there are several seperate canons. The Roman Catholic Canon is only one of about a dozen different collections of books all considered official Canon.But we're getting way OT here unless you can tie it back into 'Does Darwinism Equal "No God"?'

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I gather you wanted a response to this, but it is off topic you know, and in fact a great one for leading down endless rabbit trails. I've said a lot on the subject elsewhere and saying it again here would be a monumental undertaking. Suffice it to say the complaints about the supposedly big differences between translations are unfounded, and the differences in interpretation are a matter of personal dependence on God, and good preachers and Bible teachers compare them as they preach anyway, and refer to the Hebrew and Greek as well (Aramaic only applies to part of the book of Daniel). Most of the modern translations are acceptable although I personally prefer the NKJV.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-22-2005 01:08 PM

Actually it is not off-topic. Part of your argument is that the premise of the post is true, because evolution does not follow the word of god. Therefore you are saying anyonethat does not follow the word of god is an atheist. In order to show that I think you need to explain to us what word of god's is the WORD of god.

All I know is it was a creationist university professor, teaching zoology, that gave a presentation showing that Haeckel's data was fraudulent back in the 80s, and that's where I heard it was fraudulent.So even as a student, I knew it was wrong, but evolutionary scientists kept insisting it was right well into 1997. So the creationists were right, and the evos wrong.

You are wrong.

Can you not read or something? Did Jerry Coyne use the phrase "spontaneous generation" or not, to refer to abiogenesis? Please not the following: What do you not understand about that?You owe me an apology here, imo!This message has been edited by randman, 12-22-2005 11:58 PM

You mean because you say so? Evos believed Haeckel's claims of a phylotypic stage, yep, sure did, and they relied on Haeckel's data.The reason I keep bringing it up is because it is demonstrably true, and you guys deny it, just like evos have denied all sorts of facts for generations; heck, teaching the Biogenetic law for 70 years when there was virtually no evidence at all for it.

You are wrong in regard to the significance of Haeckel's drawings. I tried to explain this to you before, but you wouldn't listen.

Then you need to listen again. And as far as this thread, randomness and mutations has a lot to do with the OP.

Richardson is an expert in this field and refers to commonly accepted knowledge within that field and so does not substantiate that point as much as could be done.You claim he was wrong without any evidence at all.I suspect you are wrong. I don't appeal to authority alone. On something like this, I was forced to appeal to Richardson because guys like you are so incredibly ignorant of this area, even though you have a very strong and dogmatic opinion, that I am forced to show you how even someone I disagree with, agrees with me on this. This is a basic fact within the debate. You guys are just trying to squirm your way out of admitting the obvious.Heck, even Richardson admitted Haeckel was believed, relied upon, and that his depictions were fraudulent. There is no debating this, except with people like you that would swear the sky was orange if you thought it would help protect your "faith" (ToE).

That's not entirely accurate. I believe evolution leads to atheism for a great many prominent evos, such as Wilson, and that evos latched onto Darwin, in part, because of that appeal. That's just bull crap. They are scientists and asked to refer to the scientific significance of Darwin. The fact they perhaps can't see straight enough to know the difference between science and social and religious issues is indicative of many evos, and that's the whole point of the thread. Well, this is not Christmas cheer, but you are just being a flat out liar here, Percy. I never do that. I questioned jar, not because he differed from me, but because of the way he inserts the claim he was "a Christian" all the time on science threads when there is no reason to do so, except to insinuate something not entirely true. The BS point isn't even referring exclusively to his Christian claim, but the idea that he is representative of Christianity and as such as "a Christian", he feels the need to say he is one all the time, insisting in reality that other Christians like him (since he is representative of Christians) don't really believe God created mankind in His image, etc,...It's total BS, and considering his constant deceptive behaviour in this, I eventually questioned him on it. The guy would not even state he believes in an afterlife. He well may be "Christian" but his idea of Christianity is a moot point on a science thread, and his inserting that invariantly when there is no reason for it would cause any objective person to question his motive.If he didn't want his motive questioned, then he should explain why he keeps doing it and qualify what he means by "Christian". Heck, Thomas Jefferson was a Christian to a Moslem, but probably a heathen in his own mind.