Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RandomAlias said:
Guys, you have what it takes to survive in this thread. No evolution necessary!
Click to expand...
One could say that spiritually, a God guided evolution can be understood as taking place. But there would be something, someone actually evolving. Through one’s actions, one’s decisions, one is changed, becoming the person one wills. There is a self-directed becoming through one’s free will, I suppose in a similar manner to the becoming of matter through its natural qualities. In both cases God creates the agent. As in the case of the environment, where the individual organism is created a new being from dust, we may see ourselves perhaps created new, from the remnants of our life.

In a worldly sense however, it all ends in ruin. We learn a lot but it will be lost. As much as I try to keep up with everything, I’ve forgotten more than I know. I’ve known enough people with Alzheimer’s to realize we should not pride ourselves for any cleverness we may possess. And, this is not only our personal fate, but that of the world, alienated from God.

In spite of all our pretty amazing gadgets and novel ways of killing one another, and of course medical treatments, which I would add, have “progressed” to now include euthanasia, we are growing in neither wisdom nor knowledge of the Truth. To have not succumbed to the shared illusions, in many cases delusions, of secular society hardly demonstrates a lack of intellectual evolution. It arises out of a need to think for oneself and not accept facile answers, a dedication to the truth, which is associated with the refusal to abandon reason and common sense.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
a false sense of comfort
Click to expand...
False senses of comfort come from the world.

Money provides a sense of security against the reality of loss, a security blanket one clings to, wishing that everything will be all right in the face of so much human misery, much of it preventable were we more willing to share.

Fame, the illusion of being someone, which is the true reality of our being as God’s creatures broken by an uncaring world. Looking for love in all there wrong places - it’s in the giving.

Power, the illusion of control over anything but our free will to do good or evil when the choice is set before us.

What can one say about pleasure, with the spiritual pollution of pornography spreading through society. Comfort is sought in illusory “lovers” that never say no, that have no needs and that one can never love, and will therefore never cause hurt.

Comfort comes from knowing Christ, who makes our burdens light, who transforms our suffering into joy. It is faith in Him, in God’s Word that is the Light, offering hope in our darkness.

Darwinism is a flat-earth sort of science and provides a totally inadequate mythos for a society that would rebuild our bridge to God in these modern times.
 
Last edited:
Recognizing that the Internet, while facilitating the process, does make it difficult for people to communicate, I wanted to tidy up some unfinished business from an earlier thread;

There are only a couple of buttons that people can push. One of them has to do with injustice especially done to those who are unfortunate and those lacking in power within societal systems.

Not having researched it, but on reflection there seem to be three forms of abuse - as self-gratification, arising from hate and that which is practical. Sadism, an exercise of power, and using the other as a source of pleasure would be examples of the first. The second would involve projection of unwanted parts of the self onto the other in an attempt to destroy them, as well as using another to try to get back at those who caused some deep hurt to one’s self. The last, cold, calculating, and intellectual reveals a dehumanization of the other and also oneself, as one uses them for personal gain.

It is the latter attitude that came to mind, while reading a post that suggested that certain persons, specifically those with genetic and usually intellectual impairments, might be declassified as human beings, that triggered an extremely violent reaction in me. I had to pause and collect myself and see the issue for the spiritual defect, the ignorance which we ultimately all share as part of our human nature, for what it was - better pity than anger. There was a need to reflect back to the poster, for all the good that did, what message was inherent within their remarks. Hence the Nazi poster, that was produced to appeal to a worldly, anti-love, disconnected selfishness that along with racist spiritual insanity and sadism, contributed to the worst evil we have seen in mankind.

To have an objection raised against the response, rekindled the anger, shifting it into another direction. It is just like the abortion issue where people are condemned when they show images of butchered fetuses. Society does not want to know the truth. We want to continue to plead ignorance. Do people think Germans then were any different from who we are now. Seriously, we have no excuse.

This myth of pseudoscientific evolutionary “fact” feeds the illusion, enabling secular society to proceed in its unloving, unGodly ways. Each of us is responsible for ourselves. If I see something bad happening, I’m going to say it.

I do recognize that my post could be viewed as inappropriate, but I would do it again. I’ve put the matter behind me as a misunderstanding and/or difference of opinion or approach.
 
People are invisible on the internet. We don’t know their real names. Unless we know them in real life, we have no idea who they are. No background information. Nothing. Even a telephone call from a stranger provides tone of voice and attitude. It’s not limited to 3,000 characters.

No, man has not really changed for 2,000 years. The Church was under attack from the beginning. It’s difficult to tell who is telling the truth sometimes. And who is lying or, not having a dog to kick, they go on the internet and vent their anger at the nearest target. Some are indeed sadistic, taking pleasure from inflicting verbal abuse on others. That is why I left a number of other internet forums. No one - meaning average people - wants to be abused.

That said. The sheer religious-style fervor exhibited in various versions of this thread is explicable in only two ways: 1) Evolution is very important for scientific study, 2) An atheistic worldview is being heavily promoted, with evolution being a key element of convincing others that no one made us. I say the following honestly: tacking the word God onto the argument is not convincing.
 
OK… I would like someone to please explain to me how “Die-Out” works. What is it exactly that kills off the so-called previous organism ?
 
This is an appalling, and quite deliberate, misinterpretation of Colin Patterson’s quite reasonable explanation of evolutionary transition to Luther Sutherland, who was out to trip him up entirely in the style of the pharisees.

It is obvious to everybody, including creationists, that not every fossil is part of a single line of descent from bugs to people, any more than every skeleton in a family vault is a direct ancestor of a living descendent. Nevertheless, many of them show transitional features which suggest they are at least related to one evolutionary lineage of another, and Colin Patterson made that quite clear in his book.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
This is an appalling, and quite deliberate, misinterpretation of Colin Patterson’s quite reasonable explanation of evolutionary transition to Luther Sutherland, who was out to trip him up entirely in the style of the pharisees.

It is obvious to everybody, including creationists, that not every fossil is part of a single line of descent from bugs to people, any more than every skeleton in a family vault is a direct ancestor of a living descendent. Nevertheless, many of them show transitional features which suggest they are at least related to one evolutionary lineage of another, and Colin Patterson made that quite clear in his book.
Click to expand...
So why did Stephen Jay Gould come up with his theory of Punctuated equilibrium ?
 
Or their common design and adaptations shows some similarity. Just depends on how one looks at it.
 
He was exploring the reason why and how evolution could proceed at different rates. Although genetic mutation is fairly constant, environmental pressures aren’t, and evolution requires a blend of the two to function. Dramatic changes of morphology are a result of this, but even so, geological instants are still measured in millions of years.
 
Aloysium said:
Darwinism is a flat-earth sort of science and provides a totally inadequate mythos for a society that would rebuild our bridge to God in these modern times.
Click to expand...
Apart from this statement appearing completely ridiculous to the human eye, you expect too much from science. Why would you think that any theory in a scientific context ought to inspire faith or build a bridge towards God? That’s not the job of science.
 
It doesn’t explain the development of unique organs and body parts.
 
Methodological naturalism will not allow the divine foot in the door even if it is. Science then paints itself in a corner and is unable to fully appreciate the universe. In addition, this is bad science, since science is the pursuit of knowledge, but we systematically truths. Our kids suffer.
 
buffalo said:
Methodological naturalism will not allow the divine foot in the door
Click to expand...
That’s a good thing. It means that opinions about how God would do things won’t obscure the physical facts. We should keep religion and matters of faith out of it, and take the facts for what they are.
 
Last edited:
That wasn’t Darwin but a theory that came much later. Examinations on ancient fossils indicate that modern day birds are the direct descendants of dinosaurs because of their physical makeup. This has led to theories about dinosaurs having feathers and being more colorful than the bland creatures in traditional sketches. Faith and reason are better coexisting rather than being in opposition to one another. I don’t see why a person cannot believe in both, so as long as it doesn’t interfere with the Faith of the person. When science is taken as a means of morality it fails because no morality can come from science. The natural world is an extremely violent place so I think the Bible is better as a source for morality, by far.
 
On the contrary, some insist that science is the foundation for their worldview. By science, I mean evolution. The stumbling blocks will not go away. I am unconvinced that birds came from dinosaurs. It could easily be said that men came from dinosaurs.
 
Yes, and that problem will persist. The explanations will be buried in long periods of time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top