Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,911 Year: 4,168/9,624 Month: 1,039/974 Week: 366/286 Day: 9/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution as Fact and Theory
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 22 (81624)
01-30-2004 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
01-30-2004 12:23 AM


Moose,
Just a small, but important, editorial adjustment, to:
But I say it is a fact that the universe, the earth, and the nature of life on earth has changed down through time. That's evolution. Evolution is a fact.
Insert the words, "a part of" between "That's" and "evolution," and "That part of" before "Evolution...."
Evolution is the theory of mechanism, whatever else Gould might think. Darwin was quite specific about this, putting it into the title of his statement: natural selection, as opposed to artificial selection. Some of Darwin's insights, that many things took a long time, involved a "selective" process, descendency, inherited traits---really very valuable for the times. But it was bad science to make such a radical change in the accepted theory of the day, that the God, Jehovah, that most people were then crediting with the origin of biologic diversity, could be left out of the picture entirely. That men, supposedly made in the image of this God, created biologic diversity through artificial selection, only justified the new hypothesis that they were reflecting their Maker's way of working, that God, also, created through artificial selection.
Facts, as Reagan realized, are theories that have become so plausible, so dependable in making confirmable predictions, that we can use them to effectively solve practical problems. As the Nazi's tried to do with evolution. The Mennonites, correcting Darwin's and Hitler's mistakes, are having much greater success with the "artificial selection" version of the theory. Slowly, slowly, just appeal to the great Artificial Selector in the heavens. Then what you see as the "master race" will peacefully emerge, will grow in numbers to populate the world, and see it ruled in peace, love, and prosperity. A vast improvement on the "Great Awakening" non-Darwinian type of believers, who kept, and keep wanting to snap-snap take over and change the world, in six days.
Stephen
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-30-2004 12:23 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Mammuthus, posted 01-30-2004 8:09 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied
 Message 4 by hitchy, posted 01-30-2004 8:12 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 22 (81795)
01-31-2004 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Mammuthus
01-30-2004 8:09 AM


M.
You say,
Creationism was not the most widely accepted theory of the day because it was never a scientific theory. It was a religious belief, never testable, never falsifiable and never supported by evidence.
This is what I call a dogmatic opinion.
This appeal to the concept of the "master race" makes it sound like you are a supporter of nazi ideology.
The deepest evil is always a perversion of the deepest good, partly because it destroys that good as a goal to achieve. Humans are inclined to prejudice, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. "master race" is in quotes because it is the term the evil used for the concept of a "holy people." What we want, what is good, is the idea that there will be a people, ruling and in charge of a land in which other people who choose to be Nazi's or evil in some other way in their views and heart can exist in the culture while not being able to express or activate those views in a way hurtful to those they want to hurt. True believers in creation believe in a Creator, who will take care of evolutionists His own way. Evidently that is by causing them to not want to breed and multiply. In one fell swoop, this ridicules them because the theory they say they believe in is all about breeding successfully, and eliminates them eventually, because they don't multiply.
India is interesting! China, too. According to missionary reports, both places have a great interest in Jehovah and Yeshua, and a great distrust of Christianity.
S.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Mammuthus, posted 01-30-2004 8:09 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 22 (81798)
01-31-2004 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by hitchy
01-30-2004 8:12 AM


Re: old creationist ploys!!!
Hitchy,
You,
evolution is not just natural selection.
Agreed.
the misuse of a scientific theory/technology does not mean the theory/technology in and of itself is dangerous or wrong. people have used the "teachings" in the bible to commit unspeakable acts--witchburnings, crusades, slavery, to name a few. should we throw out the whole bible b/c some people used it for a way it was not intended?
I'm not throwing out the good things evolution has contributed to our thinking. Are you preserving the good things creation theories have contributed?
ah, yes. the appeals to heaven on earth--as long as you are following MY religion.
"MY religion" sounds like dogmatic opinionation, which no one should ever follow, period. Biblical religion is quite simple: take care of widows and orphans, and don't let the evil (stains) of the world affect you or your behavior. For example, don't let stupored (hence, stupid) people make you ignore the good that can be accomplished through prayer.
Stephen
I'm not throwi
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by hitchy, posted 01-30-2004 8:12 AM hitchy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by hitchy, posted 02-02-2004 3:43 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 22 (82870)
02-03-2004 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by hitchy
02-02-2004 3:43 PM


Re: creation theories!?!
Hitchy,
I don't agree that science cannot deal with spirituality. Why do you have the opinion that they must remain separate? Gould thought the question open enough to feel that a book was needed defending his contention that it was more practical if they were separated. (Rocks of Ages.) But, Dossey's reviews of science and spirituality, and various study groups on the subject, suggest that you might be wrong about this.
As to your prayer experiments, clearly, unless you take the reseach seriously, you won't get any results. Those who do, often report success.
Stephen
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by hitchy, posted 02-02-2004 3:43 PM hitchy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024