The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Evolution where to now

Evolution where to now

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All
suzeonline<<..the virtues of our natural world,..brought to us all through the wonders of evolution..and natural selection...>>evolution is a theory...it didnt..'do'..nothing..theories dont do a thing...

do we have a describing word..and a naming word..or adjective..but somehow evolution....is axchieved naturally[not very scientific..it is used indescriminantly...please advise specificly..if evolution is a noun or adhective...

..explain how it is valid..as science repeat-ablitity...or as a science methodology..[or adds to explaining genomic evolution..not just natures/survivability...

it cleverly...naturally describes what is..[was by nature..[not science...thus not science nor evolution...simply a named unknowable..that appears a science method..[adjective]..but is a buzz word..noun..descriptive of nature/natural process,..but not a science method

while were at it please define..the science of natural..[that does this 'selection'...]..your hypnotised by the buzz words...missing the forest for the trees...every bit of life teaches us about god..who sustains all living ..so it appears..via..'natural'...selectors..not selecetions

but naturally..natural..dosnt mean that much..[in terms of science methodology]...how does..'natural'..define/explain sciernce is bukkiss...its spin for children

we dont know...natural=science..that naturally fools/who reject the god concept..jump on as some clever words describing a non science.. natrure..as evidence of natural selection..meaning/explaining science as methodocal..predictable/progressive evolution...when its not

naturally..chance works on probability/chance...science needs to be more specific..than the so called faith based alternative/generalities...of the other religiously held faiths

if you cant repeat it..its chance..not science...

and no repeat-ablity..nor science method..has been tendered..thus no validations of science has been offered...

thus informing not/those..with faith based ignorance...who's faith falls upon science...have the same unthinking/uncomprehending mantra/faith..as those who claim religious/belief..but dont read the holy texts...to confim it for themself

darwin could well have wrote genus..[but he did write species...just cause you lot are too ignorant to learn the difference..isnt science proof of nothing...

and certainly dont rebut god/the creator[naturally]..the nature..behind natural
Posted by one under god, Monday, 5 October 2009 10:38:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok oneundergod, thanks for the 'scripture' lesson.
So I musn't believe anything science has told me?

Instead I should believe something a group of fishermen wrote down 2000 years ago?
I am expected to take the word of this bible which says I should believe all it says because of 'faith' in the 'Creator' and his son?

It asks me to believe the world was created in seven days and was flat?

All that is as much rubbish to me as the theories of evolution are to you. I suggest you give up on me!
Posted by suzeonline, Monday, 5 October 2009 11:46:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
suzeonline,
Ignorance is bliss and indicates an untrained mind. The Bible was not written by fishermen except for Peter and John and James who also were trained in language expression. The majority of the Bible was written by National leaders and their educators like Moses educated in the leading school of Egypt, David, Daniel educated in the leading school of Babylon, and writers from the school of prophets and Paul from the university of Jerusalem taught under Gamaliel.

If you intend to ridicule please do it intelligently. There is a pattern unfolding in the living Earth and it is intelligent and purposeful design. We are now learning its limitations by our abuse of the environment. There are principles we must live by to remain healthy, and it calls for obedience to observe those boundaries. These principles have been around since creation. It takes intelligence to live within those design boundaries.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 6 October 2009 5:55:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For the knockers of the original Biblical text,
There are three occasions at which God interviened creatively to introduce new developments into existence.
1. The first - creation of the universe of matter - Gen 1:1 at the beginning of time, "God created the heavens and the Earth". Our planet began at the beginning of time and space. He then authorised for plants to evolve from the earth - "Let the Earth bring forth reproducing vegetation" Genesis 1: 12.
2. The second - creation of moving breathing creatures from the sea then upon the land Gen 1: 20.
3. The third - creation of human intelligence Genesis 1: 26. The last time God created it was human intelligence and it still remains at the pinacle of moral responsibility and reason.

The word used for creation in the original Biblical text "bara" [to create], only occurrs three times in Genesis 1 whereas on all other occasions God permitted or authorised things already in existence to evolve or develop change, i.e. the break up of land plates to form oceans and land mass Genesis 1: 6.

The six day creation concept is a misrepresentation of days recorded on an ancient education programme for the then students of science. The actual six day creation story became a theory around the time of the Septuagint translation. Believed by the Roman Catholic Church and adopted by Islam in the 7th Century into the Koran. and propagated by Bishop Ussher with his dating of the creation using a literal reading of the Latin which still is used by some.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 6 October 2009 9:45:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,
What makes you think that I or other secularists are ignorant of your belief's arguments?
After all they have hardly changed in fact for at least a millennium.
This is despite the world we inhabit has changed beyond all comprehension since the original writings. Meanwhile the religious interpretations of contextually dubious text tend to follow fashions.

Contra this against secularists who's views/understandings essentially change with the information as it is learned.

In essence the difference is in the basis. Religion is static and doesn't meet today's context without significant 'manipulation', massaging and blind faith to get it's devotees through the minefield of life.

In that context I prefer to see where I'm going and not be pushed by your blind faith.

I accept that you do have the right to be blind and tap dance in the proverbial minefield if you choose.

In short when you have NEW evidence then I'll read it but it is a waste of your time constantly patronizingly rehashing the same ole same ole
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 6 October 2009 10:54:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo you have no idea about my intelligence,and the fact that you will not listen to any other point of view than an old-fashioned religious view, shows a very narrow-minded intelligence on your part.

I have grown up as a devout Catholic as a matter of fact, and have studied the bible extensively- mainly as a source of wonderful fiction though!
If you want to believe in the 6 day creation and 1 day off routine, then good luck to you.

I am not against religion as such, but I am against people blindly only following an old religious book and not thinking for themselves.
To me it is a denial of human reason and our ability to think for ourselves.

I am for science, critical thinking, and rational thought.
All these concepts may be foreign to you Phillo.
Posted by suzeonline, Tuesday, 6 October 2009 10:24:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy