R
rossum
Guest
I will await your proof that Vishnu is not the designer. Similarly, I look forward to your proof that Amaterasu is not the designer. Failing that, then your statement must remain unproven.
rossum
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
rossum
A
Aloysium
Guest
Vishnu represents the cause of all existence keeping the universe as one. He rests on Shesha, who eternally sings his praises, as they both float on an infinite ocean of milk. As He sleeps a lotus springs from his navel, on which Brahma, the creator of the world.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Maybe Brahma then would be said to represent the Divine designer. The symbolism and meaning isn’t philosophically sorted out. There’s no magisterium for this stuff, as has been pointed out before.
Amaratersu? Try again. She’s the Sun Goddess. The Japanese flag contains a representation of the sun, and has some connection to the story, but it’s complicated. According to Shinto, there appeared various deities from the initial chaos. Of those were a male and a female god who gave birth first to islands, their natural environment, and to several more deities from whom arose the Japanese people. There are no designers in that mythology.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Maybe Brahma then would be said to represent the Divine designer. The symbolism and meaning isn’t philosophically sorted out. There’s no magisterium for this stuff, as has been pointed out before.
Amaratersu? Try again. She’s the Sun Goddess. The Japanese flag contains a representation of the sun, and has some connection to the story, but it’s complicated. According to Shinto, there appeared various deities from the initial chaos. Of those were a male and a female god who gave birth first to islands, their natural environment, and to several more deities from whom arose the Japanese people. There are no designers in that mythology.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Further to my opinion previously stated that material Darwinism is a hoax, for your pleasure I present the latest discovery:
So a male cactus finch comes in and mates with a female medium ground finch producing fertile offspring, of which, 40 years later, there are more. Science always learning, now has discovered that interspecies mating can produce fertile offspring in the wild. Ah, the shifting sands of biological taxonomy. Yes the Big Birds are mating with one another since the other females do not recognize their calls. It is concluded that in speciation, hybridisation may be more effective than mutation. But, it’s still supposed to be a win for Darwin, what dog and horse breeders have known for millennia. And, the Big Birds, being bigger have an advantage or disadvantage over the smaller ones - natural selection at work. And those folks, are the reasons given why we are studying finches rather than the other way around. You have to admit Darwinism is some seriously funny stuff.
Oh my! I think my personality just chanelled Richard Dawkins. I shouldn’t ridicule, I’m sure to be perceived to be as much a jackass as he is when doing so. But, the temptation is strong, especially given how it’s always the other way around. Hmm. I think I’ll leave the post the way it is.
Loading…
www.bbc.com
So a male cactus finch comes in and mates with a female medium ground finch producing fertile offspring, of which, 40 years later, there are more. Science always learning, now has discovered that interspecies mating can produce fertile offspring in the wild. Ah, the shifting sands of biological taxonomy. Yes the Big Birds are mating with one another since the other females do not recognize their calls. It is concluded that in speciation, hybridisation may be more effective than mutation. But, it’s still supposed to be a win for Darwin, what dog and horse breeders have known for millennia. And, the Big Birds, being bigger have an advantage or disadvantage over the smaller ones - natural selection at work. And those folks, are the reasons given why we are studying finches rather than the other way around. You have to admit Darwinism is some seriously funny stuff.
Oh my! I think my personality just chanelled Richard Dawkins. I shouldn’t ridicule, I’m sure to be perceived to be as much a jackass as he is when doing so. But, the temptation is strong, especially given how it’s always the other way around. Hmm. I think I’ll leave the post the way it is.
Last edited:
P
PJM
Guest
NOT as it relates to humanityIs Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution True ?
In the ENTIRE created Universe of BILLIONS of things; Only One; Only Humanity is both rational and endowed with an Immortal Soul;
GBY
Patrick
G
Glark
Guest
Evolutionist garbage has even been enshrined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraphs 283, 284, 337). They think all Catholics are stupid enough to believe their claim that the theory that all life on earth evolved from microbes over billions of years is in the same ballpark as the “unerring knowledge” that God taught to Solomon. This demonstrates how powerful and insidious the Cult of Darwinism has become.See how this works?
If you believe the Bible and agree with the vast majority of Catholic thinkers and theologians, Saints and Popes, then you are no longer a good Catholic.
Evolution has become dogma. And they claim it’s “science” and not religion.
G
Glark
Guest
Which reminds me … the claim that we share 98% of our genes with chimps (or whatever) is misleading Darwinist propaganda. When comparing a human to a chimp, it is patently obvious that the massive differences that are evident on all sorts of levels add up to much more than 2%.The fact is that there exists an obvious difference between ourselves and apes, not to mention the simplest one celled life forms and before that, simple molecules.
G
Glark
Guest
It might help if you employ these basic tenets of Origins science - baseless assumptions, rank speculations and the machinations of a fertile imagination.The first cell came to life from chemicals . It could also eat those same chemicals that created it. As time went on it saw that sunlight was good to eat too, so it evolved to eat that.After awhile it grew tired of sunlight and wanted something new to eat ,but there was nothing but… it…chemicals… and…sunlight.
G
Glark
Guest
It’s apparently not difficult at all for the many godless space-cadets and charlatans that inhabit the “scientific” community.Just how difficult is the Origin of Life problem?
G
Glark
Guest
What is the point of devoting great chunks of one’s life to pursuing a theory that is both useless and untestable? One may as well study the Tooth Fairy. Since this vacuous activity doesn’t advance science, there must be another reason why evolution is studied so diligently. Here’s a hint: Most, if not all, evolutionary scientists are atheists.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Correction: We don’t know anything yet.We don’t know everything yet, but we do have many ideas.
All “we” have is some fancy but meaningless theories produced by deluded fools who believe that science can explain what is scientifically impossible.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
How will science know when it has cracked the secret of how life arose from inanimate matter?
G
Glark
Guest
If you took the different artificial breeds of dogs and threw them back into the wild, that dog population would probably eventually revert to what they started as - a garden-variety wolf.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Unfortunately, in the corrupt, post-Vat II Church, many Catholics have adopted some very un-Catholic attitudes to false religions. If St. Paul were alive today, he would be labelled a narrow-minded, fundamentalist bigot, an extremist and a “hater”. But that’s another story …
G
Glark
Guest
Can I say Hinduism is creepy?
G
Glark
Guest
I wonder how it went from eating grass and berries to eating fish and krill. And somehow it’s hind legs fused together to form a single fin and its nostrils ended up on top of its head. Inventing untestable theories (aka stories) about how these things could have happened is “science”, apparently.Did the second creature just play in the shallows for few a millions years to get use to the water ?
G
Glark
Guest
Evidently, believing in far-fetched, superstitious pseudo-science makes much more sense than believing in God.
R
rossum
Guest
It was a land based carnivore, think of an otter or a seal. For marine herbivores, look at Hippos or Manatees.I wonder how it went from eating grass and berries to eating fish and krill.
Your lack of knowledge of anatomy is showing. Whale’s legs disappeared, as a snake’s legs did. A whale’s tail evolved from… wait for it… its ancestors’ tail.And somehow it’s hind legs fused together to form a single fin
If you learned more about the subject you would not make so many egregious errors.
rossum
T
Techno2000
Guest
How many millions of years did that take ?Whale’s legs disappeared, as a snake’s legs did.
R
rossum
Guest
Consult a biology textbook. Alternatively, Wikipedia will be reasonably accurate for a non-controversial question like that. You might want to have a look at the hind limbs of Basilosaurus for an example of the process of reduction.How many millions of years did that take ?
rossum
A
Aloysium
Guest
DNA provides the information that is required to form a body. Its not surprising that we share so much DNA with apes given that we have skin, bones and muscles, hearts, arteries, veins and lungs, male and female, livers, spleens, kidneys, and intestines, glands and brains, just as they do. To consider us animals is not something new to science, but an attitude that’s been with us all along.
What differentiates different life forms is their soul, that which unites material processes into one living entity which behaves in accordance with its nature. Animals have instincts which determine their behaviour. These are organized through their central, peripheral and autonomic nervous systems. We share in much of that. We move our bodies in an organized manner; we have similar visual, auditory, tactile gustatory and olfactory perceptions, feelings such as fear, anger, pleasure, excitement and pain. When I got back from mass this morning, I wanted to ask my cat, what she considered to differentiate her species from ours, but she was off in some corner possibly updating her thesis on humanity; probably not. We have so much in common, and yet could not be more different.
What differentiates different life forms is their soul, that which unites material processes into one living entity which behaves in accordance with its nature. Animals have instincts which determine their behaviour. These are organized through their central, peripheral and autonomic nervous systems. We share in much of that. We move our bodies in an organized manner; we have similar visual, auditory, tactile gustatory and olfactory perceptions, feelings such as fear, anger, pleasure, excitement and pain. When I got back from mass this morning, I wanted to ask my cat, what she considered to differentiate her species from ours, but she was off in some corner possibly updating her thesis on humanity; probably not. We have so much in common, and yet could not be more different.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.