Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
can i make money if my evolution theory stands up lol -

words are strange and the law of attraction as well. words have an attraction clarity. such things as little words or small amount generally are attracted to larger things that are like circlular vesils if you may. consider all life and material goods as vesils and humans as temples of god. the vesels need a form of expression because of isolation. The holy spirit fills the vesels with wind words. these vesels have two size levels that i realize perhaps 3 holy things, big vesels, small vesels, some vesels do not contain an adequate amount of balance keep what it has to fulfill its purpose. things such as rust can biodegrate these vesles at a fast rate. such things as bed bugs help prepare an ariginal balance in humans. words are always in a craving mode in vesels and the meak in humans and or animals. a purpose instink mode if you dare. the instink of creating a vessel for a porticular purpose, strives to be a knowledgable never ending muti purpose devise. Though some things such as athiests and vesels need a required proof to adapt towards their desired purpose thus the acceptence of its long usage would be towards admiration.

There are several levels in vesels such things as freesers are admirable such things as holy things are admirable the cross being the best. such things as mirrors are admirable yet should not be dealt with shade. such things as windows are admirable also shouldnt be in shade. books and paper and pictures are also admirable. all electronics interconnect after awhile and become more of a comfort to vast lazyness. though still all individually called vesels including the computer. each have a multi purpose. know this is the clarity attraction, the more purpose or multi purpose a vesel has the greater law of attraction, thus the greater craving to use such things. We tend to seak safety and sustaining life being beyond this attractions short fall. The spirtual law inforces certain guide lines as such to induce rightiousness, faith, and beliefe. The ultimate goal is to succeed in a videly beliefe and admire the few that can sustain this inner craved attraction that life has presented us with. At times we fall short in the eyes of god and our inner craving leads us to medication or worse alcohol or drugs. This is an inner craving none the less a vurcular balance needs to over magnitude us according to the proper attraction leading us away from ultimate prideness or absolute prideness.

this craved attraction is based on being multi purpose. scientifically it could be seen as evolution and creation. the evolution is creating a device (material good) for a soul purpose. The creation is recomended being all multi pupose vesels at times connected ones such as clocks (clocks because each second minute hour has its purpose)
 
Do you really expect you can start a thread by sending people to a website to read a very very long treatise? If you have a point, make it.
 
Basically the article is suggesting a major shift in evolutionary theory is upon us.

An interesting quote -
Michael Ruse:
“You are very naive – it has everything to do with creationism – of course, to deny adaptationism is not to endorse creationism – but to write a piece slagging off natural selection in that way, is to give a piece of candy to the creationists – I am sure that duane gish has already incorporated this into his talks of course natural selection has to work on an array of given things, but this is not to deny selection – especially not through fodor’s silly arguments about analogies – and certainly not adaptationism the point of course is that fodor did not simply write a technical piece on adaptation – he wrote a piece flamboyantly denying selection in today’s climate, where we have just had two ultra right supreme court justices appointed, I think his behavior is somewhere between stupid and wicked”
 
As is this one:

David Sloan Wilson, biologist:
“Another example of the need to fight for the middle ground concerns the recent atheist attacks on religion by Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens and others. In this case the problem is not a denial of natural selection but other departures from responsible scholarship to portray religion as bad, bad, bad in every respect. This includes not only poor scholarship with respect to theology, which Jack might appreciate given his comment about creationism, but extremely poor scholarship with respect to scientific understanding of religion, from an evolutionary or any other perspective. It doesn’t matter that these authors have distinguished reputations, any more than a creationist with a PhD. They need to be roundly criticized on the basis of their current effort. . . .
This is not repression. It is fighting to prevent responsible scholarship and scientific inquiry from becoming a carnival.”
 
Putting it more simply, this conference of various secular intellectuals was designed to help create a “new theory of evolution” because the old one cannot be defended.

From what I read, they weren’t very successful in coming up with a new theory, but they all agreed that Darwin’s ideas were refuted by new evidence from science (especially at the molecular level).

The conference itself is evidence that Darwinian evolution is a bankrupt theory – at least in the minds of these “superstar” academics.

But the fact that they exclude the possiblity that God’s role in the creation of the world is of essential importance to any theory that attempts to explain His creation, means that they’ll continue to come up with dead-ends.
 
I’m sorry I just realized that this is a brand new book that is going to be a powerful refutation of Darwinism. I will look forward to reading it.
 
buffalo said:
Bye bye natural selection, hello self organization.
Click to expand...
The new theory will be even more ridiculous than the old one. But at least they realize that Darwinism cannot survive.

Self-organization is like creation ex nihilo. Or it’s similar to the old “spontaneous generation” idea.
 
reggieM said:
The new theory will be even more ridiculous than the old one. But at least they realize that Darwinism cannot survive.

Self-organization is like creation ex nihilo. Or it’s similar to the old “spontaneous generation” idea.
Click to expand...
Hmmmmm! :hmmm: This is certain to sent shockwaves out to the community. And also an admission about being more honest. WOW.
 
David Sloan Wilson, biologist:
“Another example of the need to fight for the middle ground concerns the recent atheist attacks on religion by Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens and others. In this case the problem is not a denial of natural selection but other departures from responsible scholarship to portray religion as bad, bad, bad in every respect. This includes not only poor scholarship with respect to theology, which Jack might appreciate given his comment about creationism, but extremely poor scholarship with respect to scientific understanding of religion, from an evolutionary or any other perspective. It doesn’t matter that these authors have distinguished reputations, any more than a creationist with a PhD. They need to be roundly criticized on the basis of their current effort. . . .
This is not repression. It is fighting to prevent responsible scholarship and scientific inquiry from becoming a carnival.”
Click to expand...
Even atheists are concerned that Dawkins and Dennett are playing the came of fundamentalists, making evolutionari theory seen incompatible with religion. It is not.
Also de OP is making the gross scientific mistake of confusing biological Evolution that is looked as a scientific fact by all serious scientists not working for Anwers in Genesis with the Neo Dawinian theory of evolution of Dawkins and Co. Is the Neo Darwinian theory paradigm what is being challenged, not evolution.
 
reggieM said:
Putting it more simply, this conference of various secular intellectuals was designed to help create a “new theory of evolution” because the old one cannot be defended.

From what I read, they weren’t very successful in coming up with a new theory, but they all agreed that Darwin’s ideas were refuted by new evidence from science (especially at the molecular level).

The conference itself is evidence that Darwinian evolution is a bankrupt theory – at least in the minds of these “superstar” academics.

But the fact that they exclude the possiblity that God’s role in the creation of the world is of essential importance to any theory that attempts to explain His creation, means that they’ll continue to come up with dead-ends.
Click to expand...

And so they should “exclude” it. God is of no use or value as an explanation for scientific data - any more than leprechauns are an explanation for how a car works.​

To use God as an explanatory device for such things is completely illegitimate - it tells one nothing, because it allows anything & everything, from turtles standing on the backets of elephants to gods conferring on the star Kolob. The only way to avoid such chaos, is to ignore “explanation by God/god/gods” entirely. The Reagan shooting & the attempt to kill the Pope are not accounted for by the use of “explanation by God/god/gods”, but by the study of ballistics, human motives, political data, & other such this-worldly things. God did not shoot the Pope - Ali Agca did. Neither did God cause the Mt. St. Helen’s eruption - geological processes did. Just as non-Divine processes did not create the earth or the contents of the universe.

The God-explanation is of no value for these. If people really believed it was, they would leave God to feed & clothe & house them & their children, find them employment, pay their taxes, heal them, & so on. They don’t, because they know very well that God does not obliterate created causes. So they don’t rely on God to clear their cancers or migraines, but on the health services. Neither does God substitute for a microscope, or for blood-typing - or for the scientific study of the universe & its history; or any other subject.

God causes all things - but not as one cause among others - God is the Universal Cause of all being, including the creaturely causality with which He has endowed created beings. So there is nothing for Him to do - He cannot be more the Universal Cause than He is 🙂 (This raises questions about the Incarnation, but one can’t cover everything :))

Just my 2d.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top