The whole truth
Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
|
| Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,08:01) | | Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 26 2012,02:39) | |
| Quote | | just one of the mistakes you're making is erroneously labeling modern evolutionary theory as "Darwinism". |
No, that's NOT a mistake. You guys haven't added much of anything to Darwin's initial musings for the last 150 years. Just fluff, smoke and mirrors as if you are attempting to support a faith.
We HAVE to distinguish between the legitimate science of genetics and evolution and another quirky body of thought where new organisms begin "poofing" out of previously existing ones. The latter is termed Darwinism.
| Quote | | (at least no one with a clue about evolution or evolutionary theory) teaches that man magically morphed from an ape-like critter. Your statement shows how ignorant you are about evolution and evolutionary theory. It also shows that your agenda is a religious one since your remarks are meant to be insulting to atheists and secular humanists. If ID is strictly scientific, and not a religious agenda, WHY do you care at all whether someone is an atheist or a secular humanist? And why doesn't it bother you that your religion teaches that humans were magically morphed from dust and a rib? |
My religion does NOT teach that woman was literally made from a rib, etc. Those of us who study this understand that the Bible is full of metaphor, parable and analogy. Much of it is NOT to be taken literally as you seem to think.
And I can assure you that, to those of us who do not take the teachings of evolutionary biologists seriously, it appears that at some point, man 'magically morphed' from an apeoid.
There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.
Earnst Maers (sp??) very specifically defined a sexual species as: any two organisms that can breed and produce viable (the offspring will live), fertile (that offspring can also produce offspring) offspring.
Men and ape-like organisms simply cannot do this no matter how much time is allowed. In fact, it is just asinine from a scientific aspect to even seriously consider it.
| Quote | | The ape to man thing is what bugs you creationists the most, isn't it? To you, an ape (or ape-like life form) is a lowly, stupid, soul-less, unclean animal, and humans (or at least 'god-fearing' humans) are exceptional, ensouled, clean beings who are specially created in the image of "God", right? Humans, being so 'special', just couldn't have evolved from a filthy ape, could they? And there's just no way that an ape could be anywhere close to the image of "God", eh? |
No...LOL...that scripture does not mean that God looks like man. Nor is there anything in Darwinistic theory that would conflict with my religious beliefs. In fact, there are a few (a few but not many) Christian believers who also embrace Darwinism.
I reject it probably for the same reasons that some 90% of those in the U.S. who study it do. It's simply scientifically silly.
It's a fairytale for grownups. |
Wow, you've got a lot to learn. I'm only going to respond to some of your ridiculous comments because I have better things to do than trying to thoroughly educate you.
You obviously haven't been keeping up if you think that "Just fluff, smoke and mirrors" have been added to Darwin's "initial musings".
Actually, your religion does claim that the first man was created (by "God") from dust and that the first woman was created from the first man's rib. Many people take and teach that literally, and many don't.
The transition from ape-like life forms to humans didn't occur overnight and no credible scientist says it did. And there is a very strong scientific basis for postulating that humans evolved from ape-like and many previous life forms.
This doesn't make any sense:
"Earnst Maers (sp??) very specifically defined a sexual species as: any two organisms that can breed and produce viable (the offspring will live), fertile (that offspring can also produce offspring) offspring.
Men and ape-like organisms simply cannot do this no matter how much time is allowed. In fact, it is just asinine from a scientific aspect to even seriously consider it."
What the hell are you talking about?
I didn't say that "God looks like man" or that "scripture" says that "God looks like man", although there is the stuff in "scripture" about "God" being a 'he/him/his' and the "Father" and the "Prince" and the "Lord" and the "King" (all masculine labels) and there's also some stuff about a character called "Jesus" who is alleged to have been a man and to have looked like a man and is also alleged to be "God" or "Lord" or "Father", etc., by many or all christians. Also, many christians think that "image" means "looks like" and that "God" looks like a man. Tell me, what does "God" the 'Father/Prince/Lord/King' look like?
What exactly is "Darwinistic theory"?
You said:
"I reject it probably for the same reasons that some 90% of those in the U.S. who study it do."
The vast majority of people who actually "study" evolution accept that evolution has occurred and does occur. Most people don't "study" evolution.
--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27
|
