Human evolution

[Stumblebum]

Willowtree, you might be interested in reading the transcripts of the Scopes Monkey Trial(just google). A 1920's sensation caused when a Tennesee teacher tried to teach Darwin to his students. An excellent tilt between evolutionists and creationists. Pay particular attention to Clarence Darrow, attorney for Scopes, as he questions William Jennings Bryan, self professed Bible expert representing the creationists as well as the state.

[LucidDreamer]

The Scopes trial is interesting but Darwin's model is quite outdated.

[Stumblebum]

Maybe so, it's the logic in Darrow's questioning I think he should read.

[Sayonara]

Is it just me who finds it terribly funny when people use words like "intelligentia", and spell them incorrectly?

 

Willowtree, you don't have to pick a side here. Evolutionary change and deistic origins are not mutually exclusive.

 

Unless of course the deity you are advocating is too stupid to create a system of life that can't respond to change in its environment, in which you are perfectly entitled to believe.

[Ophiolite]

Is it just me who finds it terribly funny when people use words like "intelligentia"' date=' and spell them incorrectly?

[/quote']I take it that was tongue in cheek, since both 'intelligentia' and 'intelligencia' are incorrect. The accepted form is 'intelligentsia'. I prefer intelligentsiya, as a means of conveying its Russian origin.

[Sayonara]

I take it that was tongue in cheek, since both 'intelligentia' and 'intelligencia' are incorrect.

Intelligentia is the Latin. Intelligencia is just made up.

[Ophiolite]

Intelligentia is the Latin. Intelligencia is just made up.

Why would you use a latinised form of a neologism of russian origin?

[Sayonara]

You might as well ask why anyone uses English.

[WILLOWTREE]

Willowtree, you might be interested in reading the transcripts of the Scopes Monkey Trial(just google). A 1920's sensation caused when a Tennesee teacher tried to teach Darwin to his students. An excellent tilt between evolutionists and creationists. Pay particular attention to Clarence Darrow, attorney for Scopes, as he questions William Jennings Bryan, self professed Bible expert representing the creationists as well as the state.

 

I know all about Scopes.

 

Bryan was an idiot.

[WILLOWTREE]

I don't see how evolution is in anyway incompatible with there being an ultimate creator.

 

Have you read' date=' with an open mind, any book on evolution by one of 'evolution's intelligencia"? I ask, because I have read, extensively, with a very open mind material by 'creationist intelligencia'. They raise some very important points, and highlight areas of uncertainty, but, in my judgement fail to make a case.[/quote']

 

The most basic claim of Darwinism is that the God of the Bible is not the Creator.

 

Darwinism assigns creation to be the product of evolution which is a process that manifests via chance.

 

According to Darwinists we are the products of accidents and not a universal God.

 

The rejection of the God of the Bible is explained by the New Testament.

 

Briefly, atheism is a penalty from God for continually rejecting Him and His percieved encroachments.

 

Therefore, the assignment of anything and everything but God as the Creator is the result of the wrath of God and its manifestation of incapacitating the ability to embrace Him.

 

Darwinism is a field populated with much persons suffering this wrath of God-sense removal.

 

This explains why Darwinists reject God as Creator.

[LucidDreamer]

What happened to free will?

[WILLOWTREE]

What happened to free will?

 

It was used to resist God one too many times.

 

The Bible teaches:

 

Your "willer" won't will unless God allows it to.

 

When a person genuinely has no desire for God = "willer" disabled by God IN RESPONSE to their resistance of Him.

[LucidDreamer]

So the prodigal son returns and gets bitch slapped?

[Mokele]

I know all about Scopes. Bryan was an idiot.

 

Wow, what an amazingly thorough, detailed examination of the case and the logic used in it! Not even slightly reminiscent of someone dismissing something offhand simply because they disagree with it.

 

 

See, people like this are why I'm not keen on these debates. They clearly have no idea what they're talking about, and refuse to educate themselves so they will. They repeat the same tedious arguements over and over, and cling to them no matter how obviously wrong they're shown to be.

 

You're better off trying to explain evolution to your dog. At least the dog will listen.

 

Mokele

[LucidDreamer]

Of course, I wasn't really talking about this kind of debate.

[Mokele]

I know, but in my experiences so far, they all tend to wind up this way, no matter how promising they start out. But that's merely annecdotal, and doesn't prove it can't happen.

 

But it does prove I'm a cynic.

[Ophiolite]

The most basic claim of Darwinism is that the God of the Bible is not the Creator.

Who told you that? It is not true. The basic claim of Darwinism is that species evolve when subject to selection pressures by their environment (survival of the fittest)' date=' and that when population groups are isolated in different in environments they will evolve into different species.[/size']

 

I did not recall any mention of God in Origin of Species. I was mistaken. (I read it when I was seventeen, which was some decades ago, so the failure of memory is, perhaps, reasonable.) God is mentioned twice. Once is a trivial reference in a quote from another author. The second is this (the emphasis is mine):

 

He who believes that each equine species was independently created, will, I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency to vary, both under nature and under domestication, in this particular manner, so as often to become striped like the other species of the genus; and that each has been created with a strong tendency, when crossed with species inhabiting distant quarters of the world, to produce hybrids resembling in their stripes, not their own parents, but other species of the genus. To admit this view is, as it seems to me, to reject a real for an unreal, or at least for an unknown, cause. It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception; I would almost as soon believe, with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells living on the seashore.

 

Now that is interesting. Darwin is declaring that the creationist view makes the works of God a mere mockery. I find that impossible to reconcile with your suggestion that the most basic claim of Darwinism is that God…is not the creator.

 

Before you interject, I know that Darwin was not a theist. I know that he saw no need to introduce god to explain the diversity of species, but he would not have written this passage (the only words of his in the entire work that mention god) if his basic claim was to eliminate god as the creator.

 

The rejection of the God of the Bible is explained by the New Testament.[/color']

I have read the New Testament a lot more recently than Origin, but you have lost me here. Please explain.

 

Briefly, atheism is a penalty from God for continually rejecting Him and His perceived(sic) encroachments.[/color']

So, as a penalty for not believing in him, he penalizes us by – wait for it – making us not believe in him.

 

At the risk of being offensive, are you quoting this stuff without thinking, or are you making it up as you go along?

Therefore, the assignment of anything and everything but God as the Creator is the result of the wrath of God and its manifestation of incapacitating the ability to embrace Him.[/color']

Huh! I see the words. I recognize them as English. I have no idea what you mean.

 

Darwinism is a field populated with much persons suffering this wrath of God-sense removal.

In passing you might want to take into account that probably no evolutionist to day would call himself a Darwinist' date=' rather they subscribe to neo-darwinism that takes into account the advances in genetics and the like since Darwin’s time.[/size']

 

Yes, I agree with you. Darwinism (if we include neo-darwinism) is a field populated by many persons. Biologists, biochemists, zoologists, botanists, geneticists, palaeontologists, etc, all with a lifetime studying the evidence, do indeed populate this field. Are they suffering the wrath of God-sense removal? Many of them appear to be quite happy. Some of them believe in god. Some of them get their greatest sense of god from contemplating the wonder of evolution.

 

This explains why Darwinists reject God as Creator[/color']

As noted some Darwinists reject God, some do not. So your argument is specious. (Couldn’t resist the pun.)

 

Willowtree, you seem to be an educated person. I beg you to look beyond the trite formalisms you appear to be accepting and to use the brain, the intellect and the powers that God gave you, in the way that he intended you use them: to explore the wonders of nature with a mind that is open and a spirit that is free. In embracing those wonders, you embrace Him.

[Sayonara]

Look Willowtree, we know evolution happens. It's an observable group of processes.

 

Deciding it opposes god (who may or may not even exist) and therefore it should just go away and stop putting the burden of learning on people is a complete waste of everyone's time.

 

 

When a person genuinely has no desire for God = "willer" disabled by God IN RESPONSE to their resistance of Him.

What would be the point of that?

[Spaceman]

I cannot see why religeous people find evolution so awfull to take in.I believe god the creator and the processes of evolution.The whole of nature,how ever much we think we know it is a constant wonder,Instead of being negative,take a look and be amazed by all gods work.I really see only one problem that these people believe God is a being.

[Sayonara]

There is always the "if God didn't invent evolution, he must be kicking himself for letting someone else get there first" response if they get a bit too tiresome.

[Sayonara]

Look Willowtree, we know[/b'] evolution happens. It's an observable group of processes.

And oh yes, I'd like to point something out that has not occurred to me before.

 

Evolutionary theory is simply a model of "something that happens".

 

If one is going to pit it against god, the creation of the universe, and the meaning of all existence, then one is elevating evolution to a position of divinity that it neither requires nor deserves, which is a pretty odd thing to do for something you don't want to accept.

[WILLOWTREE]

Hi Ophiolite:

 

Why can't you neo-Darwinists just admit the obvious: That the God of Genesis is not the Creator ?

 

How god-damn silly to type an argument that insults everyones intelligence by claiming Darwinism and Genesis do not contradict.

 

Darwin's God quotes are meaningless. Nazi's invoked God incessantly and all honest and decent persons know they just used the concept of God to justify genocide.

 

Now that you have established that there are no disagreements between Darwinism and the God of the Bible we can all log off and look for something else to do.

 

Darwinism assigns evolutionary processess and their accidental and random mutations to be the creative generator.

 

Genesis says God creates under the appearance of chance and accident.

 

My beef is with Darwinists who say evolution disproves Genesis.

 

My beef is with anyone who says God is not the Creator.

 

How does empirical evidence disprove Genesis ?

 

Answer: Only if the filter of your worldview says so.

 

I have read the New Testament a lot more recently than Origin' date=' but you have lost me here. Please explain.

 

So, as a penalty for not believing in him, he penalizes us by – wait for it – making us not believe in him.

 

At the risk of being offensive, are you quoting this stuff without thinking, or are you making it up as you go along? [/quote']

 

Romans 1 says in the context of the 18th verse/wrath of God:

 

Verse 20

 

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 

This says God created in such a way that He can be deduced from what is made/seen/created.

 

Cannot see God in creation ?

 

The verse says you are without excuse.

 

Why can't you see God in what is made ?

 

Verse 21

 

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

 

This verse says YOU knew about God and His perceived encroachments BUT refused to acknowledge Him as God and be thankful.

 

Two requirements: Give God credit as the Creator and be thankful - period.

 

Failure to comply with the two-fold demands of God = the wrath of darkening, also known as God-sense removal.

 

This means God has limits and when a person reaches those limits and refuses to credit Him as Creator and be thankful He will react in wrath that manifests itself by darkening your heart and mind. Persons suffering from this penalty are known to be atheists.

 

And you thought that YOU rejected Him.

 

Well you did.

 

But God finalized your decision by disabling your ability to embrace and comprehend Him.

 

Verse 22

 

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 

It is Darwinists who claim modern enlightenement of scientific enquiry to have exposed the Bible to be the superstitions of fools.

 

In reality, the N.T. says you are the fools - stripped of God-sense for rejecting God as the Creator.

 

God only wants credit as the Creator and it is atheist Darwinism that has proclaimed themselves to be wise without God.

 

Verse 23

 

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

 

Now these stripped of God-sense fools have objects that they worship in place of God.

 

In the greek, "image" is better translated "icon".

 

"fourfooted beasts" = quardrupeds.

 

"creeping things" = animals.

 

"corruptible man" = fossils asserted to be anthropon transitional.

 

The icons of evolution right here in Romans written 2000 years ago.

 

The God-senseless fools and their gods: animals and corruptible anthropon = the center of attention of Darwinists.

 

Verse 25

 

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

Darwinists have changed the truth of God into the lie of evolution as they are infatuated with created things and not the Creator.

 

The eternal word of God and its precision in identifying the heresy of Darwinism 2000 years ago.

 

These verses fit like a glove on this current generation of Darwinists who reject God as the Creator - the only thing God wants - credit as such.

 

These verses now perfectly explain the explosion of atheism.

 

It is caused by God who in wrath strips persons of the ability to desire Him as a penalty for resisting Him one day too long.

 

Now you know why the media, higher education, law, and scientism have embraced anti-God positions.

 

God will not be dissed.

 

Like Pharoah, YOU are being hardened as a penalty for flipping Him off so He can ensure your presence in that hot place = God gets the last word = well known message of the Bible.

[Aardvark]

Nazi's invoked God incessantly and all honest and decent persons know they just used the concept of God to justify genocide.

 

 

I know it's a bit off topic, but that's not strictly historically accurate. For one thing the Nazis tried to keep genocide secret, they didn't acknowledge it was happening, let alone use God to justify it. And they didn't incessantly invoke God.

 

Your theology seems a little eccentric to say the least, quoting Bible verses which at best are ambigious in the context of this discussion and then coming out with the concept that God is punishing atheists by making them atheists. Which inceidentally contradicts the Christian dogma that everyone can be saved, right up to the last moment.

 

And how do you know that your Bible is the true source of Gods wisdom? There have been different versions of the Bible, some gospels were removed entirely in the days of the early Church and a great deal of 'pruning' and 'tiding up' was done.

 

Or maybe another holy book entirely could be the source of Gods word, what makes you certain that the Bible is true rather than, for instance the Koran?

 

I'm not attacking your faith, these are serious questions.

[LucidDreamer]

WARNING! Sniffing glue then reading the bible may cause you to completely loose touch with reality.

[Sayonara]

Why can't you neo-Darwinists just admit the obvious: That the God of Genesis is not the Creator ?

I have been trying to think what you could mean by this for a while now, as it seems to be a reversal of your argument.

 

 

Darwin's God quotes are meaningless. Nazi's invoked God incessantly and all honest and decent persons know they just used the concept of God to justify genocide.

I call hand-waving.

 

When Darwin was on the Beagle, he was forever quoting Biblical morality to the sailors and chastising them directly from the good book itself, because that was his belief system - he even described himself as being "quite orthodox".

 

His belief that the Old Testament did not represent an authoratative view on the early world came about gradually; partly as a response to the evidence all around him (you know, things that actually existed in the world), and the realisation that - and I quote - "from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian."

 

Arguing against this stance as point of belief requires that one also acknowledges the counterargument is a point of belief. In other words, one cannot reasonably expect to "prove" (in any applicable fashion) the bible by citing the bible as evidence.

 

 

Now that you have established that there are no disagreements between Darwinism and the God of the Bible we can all log off and look for something else to do.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - both creationism and genesis would work better with evolution in them. Unless god is too stupid to make sure that his creations can respond to changing conditions, and we have simply made up the overwhelming evidence that they do.

 

 

Darwinism assigns evolutionary processess and their accidental and random mutations to be the creative generator.

First half is back to front. Second appears to be an obfuscation of nothing. Could you clarify this point?

 

 

Genesis says God creates under the appearance of chance and accident.

No it doesn't. Do you not mean "this is what I say Genesis means"?

 

 

My beef is with Darwinists who say evolution disproves Genesis.

There are no Darwinists. Contrary to the popular belief, Darwinism is not the same as evolutionary theory. What he did was spot a pattern in the relationship between related species and their differing habitats, and correctly ascribed that to a mode of selective racial progenition (which he described in the Origin of Species).

Darwin's contribution to biology at the time (although not as appreciated as it should have been) was astounding, but our knowledge of the mechanisms of evolution now are much more developed and expanded.

 

If there are any evolutionists who are claiming that evolution as a process disproves Genesis, I'd be as interested in seeing them demonstrate that as you are. Chances are they don't know what they're talking about (and note well that this would not prove your argument - it would simply mean that there isn't one.)

 

 

My beef is with anyone who says God is not the Creator.

Yet you choose only to express this by attacking the phantom supporters of a man who is long dead. How bizarre.

 

 

How does empirical evidence disprove Genesis?

If there is any I doubt it comes from evolutionary theory (well, apart from the god making man part. But that passage is wide open to myriad interpretations, and I see no reason to arbitrarily accept the interpretation that you chose to keep your "beef" from collapsing in on itself.)

 

 

Answer: Only if the filter of your worldview says so.

This would appear to be a criticism of the "scientific worldview", or an evolutionary one.

 

I have to say I find this ironic. Which is the more restrictively filtered view? That which is taken from of the natural world around us, modelled from direct observation of repeatable and testable hypothesis that are drawn on things that happen, or that view which is taken from a single book that was written centuries ago and has been reinterpreted many times since?

 

Bearing in mind of course that it is possible and preferable to answer that question without involving value judgements about the usefulness of the bible as a religious text.

 

 

Many verses etc etc

So what?

 

 

Darwinists have changed the truth of God into the lie of evolution as they are infatuated with created things and not the Creator.

I didn't want to get personal on this one, but seriously: Don't talk crap.

a) There are no Darwinists,

b) Evolution does not aim to replace any religious message, deliberately or otherwise,

c) You are pre-supposing the belief of a creator which not all involved parties subscribe to, and therefore

d) This is a situation of your own making.

 

 

The eternal word of God and its precision in identifying the heresy of Darwinism 2000 years ago.

You are free to believe what you wish to believe, but that does not make the above an objective view of reality.

 

 

These verses fit like a glove on this current generation of Darwinists who reject God as the Creator - the only thing God wants - credit as such.

The Darwinists who exist only in your head. This is getting boring.

 

 

These verses now perfectly explain the explosion of atheism.

No they don't. You are confusing cause and effect.

 

 

It is caused by God who in wrath strips persons of the ability to desire Him as a penalty for resisting Him one day too long.

Ahh, hypocrisy. My favourite flavour of whining. It has already been pointed out why this is nonsense.

 

 

Now you know why the media, higher education, law, and scientism have embraced anti-God positions.

Because they are created by, and serve, society maybe?

"Scientism", lol.

 

 

God will not be dissed.

If you are going to present yourself as the spokesperson of god I think it only fitting that you show appropriately impressive credentials confirming your right to do so.

 

 

Like Pharoah, YOU are being hardened as a penalty for flipping Him off so He can ensure your presence in that hot place = God gets the last word = well known message of the Bible.

This is what we like to call hearsay. It's only important to people who believe in it - trying to scare people into "switching sides" is not the best argument ever, in any case.