Evolution is oppossed to Love

  • Thread starter Thread starter TruthisBeauty7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Michaelo said:
Please defend you claim
Click to expand...
Evolution has never been physically observed. A scientific theory must be based on the observation of facts.

Evolution is based purely on imagination. Whatever one chooses to imagine from the slogan “survival of the fittest”.
 
TruthisBeauty7 said:
. This theory is pure rubbish poison. If one believes in such a theory then he must understand the world even today in a evolutionary mindframe. So when he confronts his fellowman he judges were exactly the other is in the evolutionary pyramid. The world elite is currently setting up its eugentics program. This is why you see such a push into the evolutionary field. They too believe like hitler there is a superior race of humans and inferior race. Think a moment of the implications of what the world would be like if we adapted evolutionary principles in our moral construct? It would become a very Evil and cruel world. Wer’e already seeing some of the effects of this philosophy in abortion, euthanizing, Stem Cell research. Could you imagine a world in which they have expiration life dates? Where the set a day for you to die, once you become to old or to useless. This is entirely possiable if the world was giving to evolutionary principles.

Hitler Killed 6 million jews based on a evolutionary philiosophy. What would it be like if the New world Order in which were hearing more and more about adapted the same philosophy?
Click to expand...
What if the purpose of evolution isn’t toward physical development but toward a spiritual development? Hasn’t this been suggested before? After that meteor landed that wiped out the dinosaurs, humanity appeared on earth with an intelligence that has developed to the point where it might be able to prevent a similar planetary catastrophe. That’s a little off the point but intellect is closer to spirit than is physical nature.

I have heard the idea that a person should volutarily refuse to “breed” if they have genetic disorders. That’s when I thought what you mention in your paragraph, namely, how is that different from what Hitler wanted?
 
Michaelo said:
Sorry, but you can’t conveniently dismiss a website because it offers evidence that supports evolution.
Click to expand...
They can call anything they like, evolution, but there has been no mechanism identified as evolution that I know of. It would seem to me that anyone who discovered the biochemical basis for actual evolutionary events would win the Nobel Prize.

And you mean support for the hypothesis of evolution, because it is as yet unobserved, it is still an occult speculation…
 
geometer said:
They can call anything they like, evolution, but there has been no mechanism identified as evolution that I know of. It would seem to me that anyone who discovered the biochemical basis for actual evolutionary events would win the Nobel Prize.

And you mean support for the hypothesis of evolution, because it is as yet unobserved, it is still an occult speculation…
Click to expand...
The mechanism is natural selection, and I don’t understand how you can remain so resolute in your opposition to evolution if you refuse to even consider the multitude of evidence that supports it.
 
Michaelo said:
The mechanism is natural selection, and I don’t understand how you can remain so resolute in your opposition to evolution if you refuse to even consider the multitude of evidence that supports it.
Click to expand...
Natural selection is not a biochemical mechanism, it is not science, it is philosophical rhetoric…
 
Michaelo said:
Again, more baseless claims

Here’s a simple explanation of natural selection:

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25
Click to expand...
That is pure BS. An imagination game about “Darwins Idea”, how cute. “Variation within species will eventually cause evolution.” Its too bad they didn’t go on to say how variation is species will cause evolution, but that would give away the hook.

You see it is only an idea, almost an hypothesis, but it isn’t even that it is simply a compelling idea…
 
geometer said:
That is pure BS. An imagination game about “Darwins Idea”, how cute. “Variation within species will eventually cause evolution.” Its too bad they didn’t go on to say how variation is species will cause evolution, but that would give away the hook.
Click to expand...
Macroevolution is microevolution at or above the species level, and I have already offered you numerous examples of this.
 
Michaelo said:
Macroevolution is microevolution at or above the species level, and I have already offered you numerous examples of this.
Click to expand...
You should study the hard sciences. Find out what the scientific method means. Then you write your thesis on evolution and see just what you can get away with…
 
geometer said:
You should study the hard sciences. Find out what the scientific method means. Then you write your thesis on evolution and see just what you can get away with…
Click to expand...
I’m done going in circles as you simply refuse to consider a viewpoint contrary to that which you already espouse.
 
Michaelo said:
I’m done going in circles as you simply refuse to consider a viewpoint contrary to that which you already espouse.
Click to expand...
How is your view point a scientific one, and shouldn’t it be a scientific viewpoint, if you are going support a theory as scientific?

I have studied chemistry, physics, biology, and various other things in my education. In my best estimate evolution is simply Darwins Idea, just as it says on that page at Berkley.

A scientific theory is much more than simply an idea.
 
geometer said:
How is your view point a scientific one, and shouldn’t it be a scientific viewpoint, if you are going support a theory as scientific?

I have studied chemistry, physics, biology, and various other things in my education. In my best estimate evolution is simply Darwins Idea, just as it says on that page at Berkley.

A scientific theory is much more than simply an idea.
Click to expand...
With respect, I think that we are going a bit off-topic…there have been many threads about whether evolution is a fact, but this thread is asking what the moral implications of it may be. Shall we perhaps, for the purposes of this thread, say just for argument that evolution is true?

Peace,
+AMDG+
 
TruthisBeauty7 said:
If Evolution is true… Couldn’t it be morally justified according to the tenets of evolution for a man to simply Kill another man because he lusted after the other mans wife? The Killer was stronger, he’s smarter, he has better instincts for Survival ,he can better protect her offspring, so shouldnt t he have claim to the other mans wife for her own survival and her children? This is the Evolutionary ethic when applied to human beings, that we must accept if will have a full Congruency on the truth of evolution. Because if its true, then its true for today as well. We should begin weeding out the old, the sick, the poor, those who have weak genetics for those with the strong, We should begin the eugentical process of building the perfect human.

This is why I disagree with the Church endorsing Evolution.
Click to expand...
I see what you’re saying, but I don’t think that we can ignore science out of wishful thinking. If evolution has factual evidence to back it up, then we must be willing to figure out how Christianity can accommodate it, rather than conveniently ignoring that evidence.

For example, people once rejected the idea that the earth revolved around the sun (rather than vice versa) because they feared it would give people the idea that they weren’t the center, the pinnacle, of God’s creation. Well, granted, it may have been very nice for us to be at the center of the universe, but the fact that we aren’t hasn’t damaged Christianity any. And the Church, recognizing the scientific truth of heliocentrism, endorsed it rather quickly.

On the other hand, you may be correct that there is a certain cruelty in natural selection…in the destruction of the weak. But I mean, there is cruelty in man’s very nature – or should we get rid of the doctrine of original sin because it implies that people will kill other people? The fact is that God allows suffering to occur, and we have to deal with that. Of course, he also gave us Jesus, who said in the Beatitudes that it is the weak who are “blessed.” So I don’t think we have to ignore the reality of natural selection; we just have to understand that a description of a natural process does not (as someone else here mentioned) dictate how we should live our lives as moral beings. Living our lives as moral beings means taking care of the weak, and following the Beatitudes rather than whatever eugenicists may crop up in a given society.

Peace,
+AMDG+
 
josie_L said:
Were you drinking when you wrote out your post? 😃
Click to expand...
Drinkin is from the debil just like evalushun is. If evalushun is true, we must for the sake of Congruency accept its moral Ramifications and that is probably that we will be drinkin. And drinkin is from the debil.

Peace

Tim
 
TruthisBeauty7 said:
. This theory is pure rubbish poison. If one believes in such a theory then he must understand the world even today in a evolutionary mindframe. So when he confronts his fellowman he judges were exactly the other is in the evolutionary pyramid.
Click to expand...
I expect this dead horse to be beaten over and over again on a Fundamentalist website, and possibly an Evangelical website, but a Catholic website!?

For the umpteenth million time: the theory of organic evolution describes how living systems physically evolve with respect to heritable, physical traits. Any attempt to extend evolution to describe non-heritable, sociological, or ethical themes contorts the theory to a level which it is not equipped to explain.

Also, I noticed you succumb to a very common mistake. Individuals do not evolve, only populations do and so evolution does not force us to “judge where exactly [our fellow man] is in the evolutionary pyramid” as there is no such pyramid within a population. This evolutionary pyramid is a complete figment of your imagination and not a construct of biology.
Hitler Killed 6 million jews based on a evolutionary philiosophy. What would it be like if the New world Order in which were hearing more and more about adapted the same philosophy?
Click to expand...
How nice. You managed to sneak a Godwin in the very first post of this thread. Game over, you win, we lose.
 
geometer said:
That is a cult website. If evolution had been observed the mechanism of evolution would quickly be identified, and then there would be evolution technologies. It hasn’t happened yet…
Click to expand...
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

How cute. Disparage the opposition by claiming they are getting their information from a ‘cult website’ and you can now safely in your own mind outright reject any bit of reason presented to you without any critical examination whatsoever.

Kudos. You’ve managed to convince only yourself.

Sincerely, a graduate from the cult university that created that cult website. :rolleyes:
 
geometer said:
Evolution is not a scientific theory, and it is not a scientific fact as Walter Cronkite had once told the nation.
Click to expand...
This post is only half correct. True, evolution (and every other scientific theory) is not a fact. Facts are observable phenomena, theories attempt to explain those phenomena.

That species evolve is a fact, Darwinian evolution is the theory that attempts to explain it.

You are, however, incorrect in stating that evolution is not a scientific theory. Darwinian evolution:
  1. Is a hypothesis that attempts to explain a set of physical phenomena.
  2. Is built upon a testable framework.
  3. Has indeed been tested by many different scientists over the last 150 years and has not yet been falsified.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top