Comments for Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution »
Posted By Neophile 1 year, 3 months ago in ReligionThe Church of England is to apologize to Charles Darwin for its initial rejection of his theories, nearly 150 years after he published his most famous work. The church will concede in a statement that it was over-defensive and over-emotional in dismissing Darwin's ideas. It will call "anti-evolutionary fervour" an "indictment" of the Church."
The bold move is certain to dismay sections of the Church that believe in creationism and regard Darwin's views as directly opposed to traditional Christian teaching. The apology, which has been written by the Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, the Church's director of mission and public affairs, says that Christians, in their response to Darwin's theory of natural selection, repeated the mistakes they made in doubting Galileo's astronomy in the 17th century. (For a fascinating look at Darwin's evolving role in scientific thought, check out Charlie Rose's conversation with E.O. Wilson and James Watson below.)
Note: If you have reached this story via AOL, welcome to Propeller! Every story here, including this one, has been posted by the Propeller community--and the same thing goes for the comments below. If this kind of social news experience appeals to you, you can learn more about joining Propeller here.
Read Full Story at telegraph.co.uk »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 243
-
0%
Mutainia1 year, 3 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What 8th grade science textbook says jostling something about in a lab will, instead of disintegrating it, create something so complex that it will come to life? I've heard scientists are still atleast 10 years away from creating life from non-living matter, possibly by using nano-technology. So, again, WHICH 8th grade science books? From public school, or from Harry Potter's? I'm thinking the latter.
Reply
-
-
-
altruisms-enemyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
cjpack10201 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
THE READING OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES IS SCATTERED AND HARD TO CATAGORIZE BUT AS WE ALL KNOW DARWIN WAS A WRITER THAT WROTE DOWN THE FACTS FROM RESULTS OF YEARS OF WORK AND FROM DAILY WORK. HIS THEORY COULD HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED DECADES BEFORE HE ACTUALLY PUBLISHED DUE TO ALFRED WALLACE WORKING ON THE SAME CONCEPT TRYING TO PREPARE FOR HIS OWN PUBLICATION. DARWIN WAS RELUCTANT BUT HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO PROCEED SO AS BE CREDITED WITH THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION THROUGH EVOLUTION. HE KNEW WHAT HE WOULD BE UP AGAINST. WITH SO MANY IN DENIAL OF THE EVOLUTION THEORY WHY WOULD ONE THINK OVER 150 YEARS AGO THE PUBLIC AND THE CHURCH WOULD BE RESEPTIVE TO THIS GENIUS WORK. CPACK
Reply -
cjpack1020Comment removed: Spam
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
-
100%
LaBurladora1 year, 3 months ago
-
-
100%
smithichie1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't blame ALL Muslims for 9-11 anymore than I blame ALL Christians for Eric Rudolph, but there are still those who are willing to apologize for the acts of others. Of course they are hard to notice when you go through life with blinders on.
Reply
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/003157.php-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
-
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive1 Reply
-
-
100%
Green-Gal1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LaBurladora.
Reply
Wrong church. Church of England is in England, the The Inquisition was mostly in Spain and other Catholic counties, though The Inquisition practiced in England, it was then still the Catholic Church, not the Anglican.
But you are right in another way, the Catholic church should apologize for Priests and Nuns for raping children and then declaring bankruptcy when victims came to sue, signing The Compact with Adolf and leaving millions to die, using Religious Tax Exempt Status to promote political ideology in America, and the list goes on....and on....-
altruisms-enemyComment removed: Hard Banned
-
altruisms-enemyComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
-
100%
mack0831841 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
mutainia, you are crazy. They have created the building blocks to life in a lab. It is a process, that takes time. It didn't happen over night the first time why would it happen over night in a lab. I do not understand how people can accept the accounts of a ancient book written by people with very little understanding of the world around them. I guess if you can believe that then I can believe that if I jump into the wardrobe there willo be a lion in there ruling a world full of funny looking creatures.
Reply-
100%
aubergine0dream1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
THANK YOU. You know, lightning was first thought to be punishment from god. Then the church got ****** at Franklin for inventing the lightning rod and "interfering with god's will". Come on now. If god is all powerful, he would bend the laws of physics and make lightning not hit lightning rods. Lets see. What else was explained poorly in the bible and been perfectly explained by science? like everything else.
Reply-
0%
sdbrown41 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
actually, if you would have read the bible and understood what the bible said... you would have seen that they had a better understanding of enviromental, biolagical, and mechanical things then we do now, we just know more about the micro level of things.
Reply
You should watch history channel a little more, they have some great shows that shows what kind of devices they had back then, it'll blow your mind.
here's a question for you, if evolution is true, then why is life bound by so many rules? why does it have to have water to exist? wouldn't it just find a way the live without?
and please, the platypus, how did that happen in evolution :)-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive1 Reply
-
-
100%
Coatl1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't see how those questions are related to evolution itself but...
Reply
"why is life bound by so many rules?"
Probably because the Universe is, but curiously there is no rule that draws a clear line dividing life from non life. Instead we have a very fuzzy area where viruses are of replicating entities which don't quite replicate by themselves, and that don't "eat" nor grow.
" why does it have to have water to exist?"
Basically because it stays liquid at the earth's temperature, it's very abundand in the universe, it's a good solvent but doesn't disolve fats and it doesn't react so easily, among others. But that doesn't mean that another type of liquid could be used in another type of environment.
"and please, the platypus, how did that happen in evolution :)"
That's a good question because you have a very primitive type of mammal that still lays eggs and with some reptilian features. It could be considered a living transisional fossil. -
100%
Bluedragon9121 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"here's a question for you, if evolution is true, then why is life bound by so many rules? why does it have to have water to exist? wouldn't it just find a way the live without?"
Reply
First off, life began in water. Water is also a perfect medium for life because of its (and this is coming from an AP Biology book) hydrogen bonding, cohesion, adhesion, high specific heat, and that ice is less dense than water. Life began in the oceans, so it makes sense that we depend on water. According to the Bible, however, we should be living off mud.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.php -
100%
RickyDawkins1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"and please, the platypus, how did that happen in evolution :) "
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hG4dcTj408
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus#Evolution -
100%
tuliplilly1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You really should try to read a science book. That is the worst argument against evolution I ever heard. Animals adapt and evolve as best as they can under the circumstances. We can't just magically stop needing water. All life needs water! We can't just think of something and not need it anymore. Evolution takes time, a very long time. Hence why there was life here millions of years ago, but humans didn't show up until thousands of years ago. But I guess to you that makes way less sense to you than some invisible ghost waving his hand around and creating people.
Reply -
100%
Ratskii1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
sdbrown, your questions seem nonsensical to me. Water, is of course, the best solvent in nature, hence its important role. We don't know if evolution can occur in other environments or not.
Reply
Did you know that it takes a larger breeding population than two animals to maintain and grow a new population of a species? Noah wouldn't have been able to restart life on land with just two of everything and his own family was so small they would have become extremely inbred to the point they couldn't have survived. No, I don't think the Bible had a better understanding of environmental, biological and mechanical things.
By the way, do you think that the number pi is equal to three? The Bible states that the ratio of the diameter of a circle to the circumference is exactly equal to three. Try to practice engineering based on that assumption.
-
-
-
-
-
100%
smithichie1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Darwin could have denounced evolution on his deathbed, he didn't, but if he did it wouldn't mean anything more than if Newton had denounced gravity on his deathbed, we would still be studying gravity today just as we study evolution. It seems more than a few people seem to think Darwin was the last word on evoluton, heck he didn't even know about genetics, that field had yet to be discovered and guess what? It fully supports evolution.
Reply -
-
100%
aubergine0dream1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jee well i wonder how Darwin could falsify that statement if he was dead. Church people make up that people "accepted jesus christ" all the time. When i die i will have a tape recorder in my room. "his smack" was one of the most influential discoveries of all time, not "hooey" you hick.
Reply -
-
-
NotreDameGalComment removed: Spam
-
11%
mdmkallen1 year, 3 months ago
-
100%
wildman65571 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Bible doesn't say a thing on HOW the heavens and the the Earth were created. Only that God created them. Who knows maybe the "days" in the Bible are not 24 hours, perhaps they are geologic epics. After all the word World in Luke where the whole world was enrolled obviously didn't include the Incas. If one is figurative then why not the other. If you accept that then evolution and Genesis fit together very nicely. So what you say is not end of story, it is just a Biblical interpretation which may or may not be correct.
Reply-
-
-
-
-
100%
Bluedragon9121 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.bible.ca/D-counts-Stars.htm
Reply
If God is that great, then why should He be subjected to 24 hour days? And didn't he make the sun in the first place, according to the Bible? How long were the days before the sun?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Dionys1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"nah, it's called compromise"
Reply
Not really. There's nothing that says that creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive unless you're a Bible literalist. And if you're a Bible literalist you have a heck of a lot more problems with contradictions between the Gospels alone.
-
-
-
Neutral
cjpack10201 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
WHY NOT? GOD DID NOT JUST SAY LET THERE BE LIGHT. HE FORMULATED THE CHEMICAL FORMULA AND THEN THERE WAS LIGHT. THE BIBLE TELLS US ABOUT EVOLUTION ALSO. GOD THE CREATOR OF EVERYTHING, EVOLUTION TO. ACTUALLY AINT NO SUCH THING AS EVOLUTION IT HAS ANOTHER NAME, CALLED REVOLUTION. THE GOVERNMENT HAS A WAY OF HELPING EVOLUTION ALONG, DON'T YOU THINK?
Reply
-
-
80%
miramesa1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
About time they apologized for SOME THING. They had kept the known world in darkness for so long it set us back many, many years.Now it's time for them to apologize for some of the other injustices they are responsible for.
Reply
miramesa -
0%
NotreDameGal1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For clarification Darwin renounced his theory of evolution on his death bed. Charles Darwin, the author of THE SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION in 1859 and the champion of evolution, renounced his evolutionary theory and became a Christian on his deathbed. This was reported by noblewoman Lady Hope who said she visited Darwin at his home in England at the close of his life. She described him as reading the book of Hebrews in the New Testament of the Bible. She also said that he regarded his writings about evolution to be questions that people made into a religion. Lady Hope said Darwin asked her to conduct a meeting outside a summer house he owned so he could hear the singing of the hymns.
Reply
The Church of England should have done a little more homework before making such a huge error. Apologizing to Darwin for a theory he renounced himself. Catholics 1, Church of England 0!!!-
100%
danielrice201 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
NotreDameGal: That is an often repeated myth.
Reply
"The story of Darwin's recanting is not true. Shortly after Darwin's death, Lady Hope told a gathering that she had visited Darwin on his deathbed and that he had expressed regret over evolution and had accepted Christ. However, Darwin's daughter Henrietta, who was with him during his last days, said Lady Hope never visited during any of Darwin's illnesses, that Darwin probably never saw her at any time, and that he never recanted any of his scientific views (Clark 1984, 199; Yates 1994).
The story would be irrelevant even if true. The theory of evolution rests upon reams of evidence from many different sources, not upon the authority of any person or persons."
Links:
Greig, Russell, 1996. Did Darwin recant? Creation 18(1): 36-37. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1315.asp
Yates, Simon, 1994. The Lady Hope story: A widespread falsehood. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html
References:
Clark, Ronald W., 1984. The Survival of Charles Darwin: A biography of a man and an idea. New York: Random House.
Yates, Simon, 1994. (see above)
Further Reading:
Clark, Ronald W., 1984. The Survival of Charles Darwin: A biography of a man and an idea. New York: Random House.-
-
100%
Tangent0011 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The simple fact remains: Even if Darwin DID renounce evolution, the general theory still works (with a little tweak here and there, e.g. the addition of Mendelian genetics) and is consistent with the vast bulk of all evidence amassed to date
Reply -
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
-
86%
Lissa261 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thank you for setting things straight. Charles Darwin did NOT renounce his theory of evolution on his deathbed and I'm tired of Christians trying to peddle this myth. If Christians want to bury their heads in the sand and believe that some omnipotent being created the entire universe in seven days and we all sprang from Adam and Eve so be it. However, remember Christians were also the ones who believed the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth, and anyone who disagreed with these ridiculous views was totured into recanting his or her disbelief or were killed as heretics. I certainly prefer to put my beliefs in empirical evidence rather than made up fairy tales passed off as religioius faith.
Reply-
-
Neutral
encouraged19743 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you read from the King James Bible and not all these weird versions that take from the word of God then you will not be so confused my dear. Please find one and read Genesis again. I have my Bible and there is nothing in there about Eve being made from clay. And again God made us all do it really matter if he made us with clay or sand. He made us and not we ourselves. Just think about it. We have to answer to God one day for our lives.The Bible says every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. What we are made from will not matter at that moment. Heaven or Hell will matter for eternity.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
encouraged19743 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You do know that catholics murdered hundreds for saying they were protestant. Because they believe that Jesus was the Messiah as the Bible say For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16 You can't work your way to heaven and talking down on people will not get you there either. Why is it hard for people to believe that Darwin accepted Christ as his Savior I have too you must believe then recieve him into your heart to understand and see God's love. He loves us all and wish none would perish.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
bdalechamberorch1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He talked about species experiencing genetic variations in order to better or more efficiently survive certain environments. Why do you think so many humans have to have their wisdom teeth removed because they are impacted? Or they don't grow at all?
Reply -
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
Neutral
cleare1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OK notredamegal, for these purposes i'll call myself uclagal and also declare that i too, have advanced education. this is a quote from the first source i found, but i've seen similar descriptions elsewhere. This comes from a "Short Biography" from the Coe College Biology Department website "...he (darwin) died at Down House, after several hours of nausea, intense vomiting and retching, symptoms of a chronic illness that bedeviled him for the last 40 years of his life. At his bedside, and attending to his needs, were his wife Emma, his daughter Henrietta and his son Francis. A widespread rumor circulated -- facilitated by an evangelist by the name of Lady Hope who preached in Downe during the last years of Darwins life -- that on his deathbed Darwin renounced evolution and declared himself a Christian. This story, totally contradictory to the nature of the man himself, is a falsehood, denied by his daughter Henrietta and those who knew him best and who were actually at his bedside during his last weeks. Darwin's last words, spoken to his wife Emma, were in actuality, "I am not in the least afraid to die."
Reply
-
-
-
100%
aubergine0dream1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
YOU shouldve done a little more homework. I wonder how objective and unbiased this "report" mustve been. Of course anyone in the catholic church would make up anything to make someone so revolutionary (and who happens to go against their beleifs) seem like hes going back on his word. Religion is pathetic. Trust me read the book. And the Descent of Man. WOW YOU KNOW THE FULL TITLE OF THE BOOK and the year it was published. Why dont you read it a couple of times through? He had full belief in his theory and would never renounce it.
Reply-
0%
NotreDameGal1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So you knew him well...I believe you aren't in touch with Darwin at all. I have a Doctorate in Quantum Physics and Theology. I have read the book. I also believe he looked back on his life and renounced his teachings. I believe this was done in fear of God. Though none should fear God. He had reason to believe his teachings brought many away from God and in the end feared his own judgement.
Reply-
-
-
75%
thesilvershields1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
She's certainly lying because one does not get a doctorate in 'quantum physics and theology.' You either have a degree in one, the other, or two doctorates. And I went to school with theology majors, they're one step below education majors, which is indicative of their pathetic education.
Reply
-
-
100%
dissent1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the only real reason why people cling to religion and the only reason why it exists in the first place, apart from social and cultural indoctrination, is because death is inevitable and what comes after is unknown.
Reply
you've thrown the baby out with the bath water. you've drowned scientific analysis with religious mysticism all because, according to you......
he was afraid to die.
but so what if he was? his fear doesn't make the science invalid -
-
Neutral
Questioner1571 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
hmmmmmmm double Doctorate how impressive. I'm not exactly sure how a degree in Quantum Physics helps in understanding of evolution but that's just me. I can see why you don't have a Doctorate in both Physics and Quantum Physics since the 2 do not agree with each other. Physics being the study of particles of atomic level and above, and Quantum Physics being the study of particles smaller than atomic level. (such as Quarks) however since there is no unified Theory to explain why particles beneath atomic level DO NOT follow the laws of Physics one of them must be wrong. But perhaps we just don't have enough information yet.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
100%
Bluedragon9121 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Read this, it's written by a Christian group.
Reply
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/darwinconvers... -
Neutral
cjpack10201 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
SORRY YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THAT. AS A MATTER OF FACT DARWIN WAS TO BE A THEOLOGIAN AT FIRST. AND HE WAS LUCKY ENOUGH THAT HIS FREIND HUXLEY HELPED HIM TO GO WITH THE HMS BEAGLE FOR A MAPPING OF SOUTH AMERICA, THIS TURNED INTO A 5 YR JOURNEY IN WHICH DARWINS THEORY STARTING FORMULATING. WHEN HE WAS DYING HE SAID TO HIS WIFE EMMA, I AM NOT AFRAID TO DIE AND SHE REPLIED NOR SHOULD YOU BE CHARLES. DO YOUR HOMEWORK. I HAVE PROBABLY READ 40 BOOKS ABOUT DARWIN AND MANY OF WHICH HE WROTE HIMSELF. THE BIBLE IS A HISTORY BOOK ALSO. IT DOES NOT GIVE US THE DETAILS OF GOD'S PLAN. JESUS EVEN TALKED IN PARABLLES TO HIS DISICIPLES? HE DID NOT WANT MAN TO KNOW IT ALL. WRONG WRONG WRONG
Reply
-
-
100%
tkdcorey121 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually Mack the experiment you are referring to is called the Miller-Urey experiment. It did create amino acids, I'll admit. But most modern geochemists agree that the atmosphere he used isn't remotely like the one that actually existed. Miller used a methane-rich atmosphere, and excluded oxygen-which was present. In addition, creating Amino acids is impressive, but it does not mean that God is out of a job. The right Amino acids need to combine in the right order to create a protein, and your still far from a single celled organism. Furthermore, several toxins were also created as a byproduct of the experiment, so it wouldn't have mattered if a cell did form, as it would have died anyway.
Reply-
100%
Tangent0011 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The first single-cell organisms likely arose in an oxygen-poor atmopshere, it wasn't until much, much later that oxygen became more dominant.
Reply
The generation of amino acids is an important step in a long chain of events leading to the first self-replicating molecules and eventually what science would consider life. Labs have created self-replicating molecules and Antarctic research has shown that complex chains of organic molecules can form in microscopic water chambers in deep-frozen ice.
-
-
-
0%
NotreDameGal1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So...you perhaps shouldn't have replied...It has never been proven to be a myth. What in the book would be grounds to refute this? Did they talk to Lady Hope? I have done quite a bit of research on this subject and my sources are confirmable and reliable. And yours? You stated you weren't even trusting of the book you mentioned yourself.
Reply
-
-
0%
NotreDameGal1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Charles Darwin, the author of THE SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION in 1859 and the champion of evolution, renounced his evolutionary theory and became a Christian on his deathbed. This was reported by noblewoman Lady Hope who said she visited Darwin at his home in England at the close of his life. She described him as reading the book of Hebrews in the New Testament of the Bible. She also said that he regarded his writings about evolution to be questions that people made into a religion. This is a fact.
Reply-
-
-
100%
Bluedragon9121 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Only this.
Reply
Again.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/darwinconvers... -
-
-
-
-
80%
drdebvet11 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Prove it.
Reply
Prove that Lady Hope was there and that's what she heard.
If it's a FACT, then prove it.
But it really doesn't matter anyway. There is nothing....NOTHING....in the Bible that denounces evolution. Evolution and creation are NOT mutually exclusive processes.-
-
-
Neutral
drdebvet11 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So in other words....you CAN'T prove it.
Reply
Mostly because it isn't true.
But even if it were, as others have pointed out, it doesn't change other facts. If Sir Isaac Newton had become delirious on his deathbed and "renounced" the laws of physics, it wouldn't make them any less true and concrete.
But whatever you CHOOSE TO BELIEVE, please stop going around espousing your beliefs as "facts".....because they're not factual. They're only YOUR BELIEFS. You're entitled to them, certainly.....but just because *you* happen to believe something, doesn't make it factual.
-
-
-
-
-
0%
pastorpat11 year, 3 months ago
-
100%
rivermint1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow , I am hoping that Jesus is more compassionate than that.
Reply
I wouldn't harshly punish children for making a mistake , so I am asuming that a superior being with superior compassion would simply be able to correct any misconceptions without having to resort to pointless corporal punishent. A simple appearance and conversation might actualy do it in alot of cases.-
-
0%
Cong1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You can all argue your man-made theories but there is no way that anyone can sit there looking at how perfectly balanced everything is and believe that all of this just happened or evolved over time. How lucky we are that the Sun is strategically placed at a distance that would not allow for us to be burned up, or how fortunate we are that the trees produce the oxygen that we need to breathe. What a stroke of luck it is for us to have the much needed water on this planet in order to sustain life. Common guys, the bottom line is that Evolution is in fact just that
Reply
(A Human Theory) that people want to believe because as humans we require an explanantion for everything. Faith is just the opposite. There's a reason that the Bible says Blessed are those that believe and have not seen.-
-
100%
Coatl1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In other words:
Reply
If things were different, things would be different!
Do you know what would be a perfect evidence of a supernatual origin of life?
The fact that life couldn't possibly exist at all, and still it existed.
"There's a reason that the Bible says Blessed are those that believe and have not seen."
Sure, to prevent people to think about it! -
Neutral
drdebvet11 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Interesting theory, yours (to Cong).....considering that the BIBLE is simply a compilation of works written by humans (specifically, men....and more specifically, men with a personal agenda) in an attempt to understand our origins. Further, it was again HUMANS who decided which of the many documents would be included in the book that was to become known as the Bible, and which would be discarded because they didn't fit with their agenda.
Reply
Everything in the Bible is a "man-made theory," Cong. There is some history in there, but most of it is pure speculation.
-
-
-
-
50%
thesilvershields1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Grow the hell up you low-life scum. This is why I loathe pastors, they have no idea what they are supposed to be doing. It is your job to 'guide' people, not to determine who has an opportunity to 'apologize' for anything. I will gladly spend eternity in whatever hell you have concocted in your mind as long as I know you are there and people like you.
Reply -
-
-
-
0%
pastorpat11 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Darwin's theory of evolution isn't even believed by scientific evolutionists. We have a national scientific laboritory in town and nearly all scientists here believe Darwin to have been ignorant of most facts but- the ends justifies the means
Reply-
83%
Coatl1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Indeed, he ignored everything about genetics, yet he still found the way evolution was driven, and even when he didn't knew exactly how "descent with modification" worked, he guessed that it could make big changes. And so far, he was right!
Reply -
-
100%
Bluedragon9121 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hello, but I think you should *read* this.
Reply
http://crazytalk.typepad.com/bluegrassroots/2007/0...
-
-
50%
Jacob3451 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To hefaa1 and the other Catholic bashers, the Church formally apologized as to Galileo in 1992. The Church of England is apologzing to Darwin in 2008. hefaa1, I think you need to learn a bit of math. 1992 comes before 2008. Also, the Catholic Church has always believed in evolution and felt it is compatible with the teachings of the Bible. That is, we believe a higher being, whatever that may be, created everything, but man has no idea just how long that took - most likely billions of years. Catholics also believe evolution IS God's work. And why not? Why is that so impossible? Why do holy rollers want to limit God's work and all that he can do? Everything has evolved. Stop being so backwards and pig-headed. All that being said, it should just be actual science taught in our schools and the religion can be taught in bible school, bible classes or at home.
Reply-
100%
dissent1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"i think you need to learn a bit of math."
Reply
i think you do too. galileo was before darwin by a few hundred years. but churches, whatever denomination, shouldn't just apologize to a cuppla guys. they should apologize to the whole human race for....
1. acting like they knew better
2. telling the rest of us how to live our lives when they didn't know better
3. for creating so much death and misery while telling the rest of us how to live our lives when they didn't know better
4. for making sure that the rest of us remained as primitive as they were for as long as they possibly could because they didn't know better even though they pretended they did and still do
there's probably a few others that should be added. fee free
-
-
0%
pastorpat11 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the THEORY of evolution continues to evolveas the timeline is continually stretched out. Not because dat shows life to be older but because it has been proven to be impossible for such changes to have happened in such a short time.
Reply -
hefaa1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
0%
pastorpat11 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jacob-
Reply
Does "pig headed" mean "willing to actually think" rather than just be force fed bull crap? Evidence shows evolution to be bad-even fraudulent science. For the most part it is atheism trying to refute God and does a poor job of it. -
0%
pastorpat11 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you believe in the big bang theory, you should take not of the fact that it was atheistic evolutionists and not the church that had a problem with it. The fist and second laws of thermo dynamics require there to have been an "outside source" in order to create the bang.. It is imposible for it to happen from within.
Reply -
57%
ljoy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are wrong if you think that you have to believe either evolution or the Bible. Evolution is the process of how life is changed not how it began. There is nothing about evolution that explains the creation. And for those of you who can't see that God didn't need to tell us every detail in the beginning when we couldn't have understood it ( Or didn't need to understand it) think about telling your children how they were created. Do you tell a two year old every detail? And do you think that just because we now understand the process of making a baby that it leaves God out of the creation of a baby? I think the Bible gave us a simple version of the creation that we could understand. Who knows maybe " Let there be light." was the Big Bang. Science does not explain away God. Science is merely a study of his work. Just because we have a slight insight into how it happened does not bring us anywhere near to understanding everything he has created. Whether or not you believe in God is up to each individual, but don't use science as an excuse not to believe because there is no conflict in God's story and science.
Reply-
-
75%
thesilvershields1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually there are numerous conflicts, and despite what NotredameGal thinks, your comments are not intelligent. The Bible makes several statements known to be false, whether it is the fact that it claims the earth to be flat or that there is no afterlife (which cannot be determined, but contradicts other sections of the text). 'Let there be light' is a general myth from all religion's gods, it is not special or unique to the Bible, and has nothing to do with 'the Big Bang.' The Hebrew writers of the Bible did not have 'special insight' into God's plan. They devised their own myths after influence from previous Near Eastern thought.
Reply-
100%
Tangent0011 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problems between science and religion come when one views the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) as anything other than allegorical. If one is going to posit something like the Noachian flood as an actual historical event that accounts for the whole of the geologic column, then, as Mr. Ricardo says, "You got some 'splaining to do!"
Reply
Most theologians I have had the distinct pleasure to learn from see no inherent contradiction between God and science and have long ago placed the notion of a scientifically accurate Bible in the toy chest.-
100%
thesilvershields1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Indeed, theologians who study it from a 'religious studies' point of view, rather than theologians who study it from a 'priestly' point of view. One who specializes in religious studies realizes the Noachian flood is a myth inherited from earlier Near Eastern myths, but 'theologians' studying to become a priest or pastor do not study any other religion than their own, and if one does not know *where* what they believe in comes from, they don't know much about what they believe in.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
drdebvet11 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, ljoy, The Bible was NOT written by God. If it were, your post would have merit. But the Bible wasn't written by God, it was written by MEN. Men who wanted everyone else to believe what THEY had *decided* for everyone to believe. There are people running around right now professing to be writing the "word of God." Why don't you believe THEM? What makes the documents of the Human/Christian Bible the "word of God"? And what made it okay for those in power back then to disregard (actually destroy) other legitimate works just because they didn't like what was said in them?
Reply
God doesn't need to put into writing what he/she wants us to know about our origins. It's too flawed a system. God has better ways of communicating.
-
-
20%
pastorpat11 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
rivermint
Reply
Does God judge according to mistakes? No, because He is compassionate. Will He judge those who outright rebel against Him? Of course- He is a just and righteous God. The problem is that we have all outrightly rebeled against Him and have lived as our own gods. So judgment will come to us all. The GOOD news is (that's what gospel means) is that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was my judgment and anyone else who will repent and put their trust in Christ.-
100%
thesilvershields1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nevermind the fact that Paul wrote that Jesus' death was a 'sacrifice,' and Paul never met the man. Jesus' so-called sacrifice is a common myth in many religions. There are numerous savior gods taking the form of man to 'rescue' humanity from something. The problem is uneducated people like yourself who have no idea about anything other than your Bible. You don't bother to educate yourself. That is far more unforgivable than any other 'sin' you devise.
Reply-
doggammitComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
100%
Bluedragon9121 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Does that include the Church of England? Because this should look familiar...
Reply
"The church of England rejected God several years ago. They have embrace many anti-biblical positions and, when Jesus returns, will have no opportunity to apologize."
So many contradictions...
-
-
100%
batatude1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm rooting for either:
Reply
A) a comet or meteorite to hit us....proving that God doesn't mind destroying His own work
B) an alien visitation...proving that we aren't alone
Let's try doing good in the world...not to get into heaven...but just to be decent to others. -
-
-
-
doggammitComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
100%
Coatl1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm an atheist...
Reply
according to your hypotesis I think I am god (who can do whatever he wants)...
I want to make 10 beautiful women appear from nowhere...
...
...
...
nothing happens, so I'm not god...
I know I'm not god, nor I want to be god...
so your hypotesis has ben disproved. -
100%
Tangent0011 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, atheism is not a philosophy at all, much less a 'religion'. Atheism is simply the denial of the existence of supreme metaphysical beings. Where morality comes from depends on the positive philosophy of the atheist. Some are Existentialists, some are Taoists, some (like me) are Rationalists. That my morals are derived rationally, does not mean I have made myself 'God'. I have no desire nor authority to lord my philosophy over anyone else. Many Christians think the same way. It is the loud and shrill that demand everyone else believe as they do that cause all the problems.
Reply
-
-
-
pastorpat1Comment removed: Spam
-
100%
Savij1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh Goodie! That means in about a thousand years they might apologize for being over-defensive and over-emotional in fabricating God!
Reply
It took me less than a decade to realize that Santa Claus wasn't real... that means collective religious intelligence doesn't exceed that of an 8 year old.
Or am I being too bold?
Okay, I was 10- is that better?
Next up- Nietzsche is Sainted! -
100%
generaleffect1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And they say the Brits have no sense of "humour"! Look guys, it makes no sense for people who weren't alive THEN to apologize to people who aren't alive NOW. It's just a convoluted way for people NOW to say, "Those folks were wrong back then." It's not unlike apologizing to the dinosaurs for our not having evolved fast enough to have saved them. Absurd!
Reply -
0%
farmhouse20011 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can't believe people actually buy into the idea that we "evolved" from apes. If so, there wouldn't be any apes left. I believe we all need to go back and read God's word. God created all things. Why do people still choose to not believe??? What will happen when they die? Will they go to ape heaven? God help them.
Reply-
100%
Coatl1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can't believe people actually buy the idea that they are related to their grandparents. If so ther wouldn't be any parenys nor grandparents. We need to go back and read the FSM's word. The FSM created everyone of you yesterday with all the memories of a life time already inside your head. Why do people still choose to not believe?? What will happen when they die? will they go to their parent's heaven? The FSM help them!
Reply -
100%
Ratskii1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I get tired of saying this, but please refer back to the actual theory of evolution: The greater apes and homo sapiens evolved from a common ancestor. Our best information to date seems to indicate that humans and Chimpanzees branched off from a common root about 5 to 7 million years ago.
Reply -
100%
drdebvet11 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
farmhouse2001, evolution has NEVER said we evolved FROM apes. Never. Never, never, never. That is something CHRISTIANS DECIDED that evolutionists were saying only because they wanted to discredit them.
Reply
If you can't grasp the concept of one organism being an ancestor to two organisms, I can't help you. But Coatl said it best, as relates to grandparents.
If you need it to be more simplified, simply take a population of fruit flies that are all alike. Divide them into different groups and subject them to different environmental conditions. You will end up with very different groups at the end. None of them "evolved" from each other, but they DID evolve from the original group.
It's very easy to see, since fruit flies have such short lives and this can be accomplished in a matter of weeks, if not days. Now take that same phenomenon and spread it over thousands and thousands (even millions) of years. That's how evolution has taken place. It's phenomenally complex....and it's real. It also does not conflict with the notion of God or the THEORY of creation in any way. -
-
-
100%
REVCHRISTOPHER1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I AM A SCIENTIST AND A THEOLOGIAN WHO HAS DEBATED EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTISTS FOR 30 YEARS. I CERTAINLY DON'T KNOW IT ALL AND THE MORE I LEARN, THE MORE I AM AMAZED AT MY OWN IGNORANCE. AND WHAT HAVE I LEARNED SO FAR? I HAVE LEARNED THAT LIFE IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN WHAT WE HAVE IMAGINED, AND THAT THOSE WHO BOAST THE MOST KNOW THE LEAST.
Reply -
67%
darthanakin141 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In light of this, I think the scientific establishment should apologize to Alfred Russell Wallace-who codiscovered evolution with Darwin. Even though he made the same scientific discovery as Darwin, Wallace has been banished into obscurity and labeled as "crackpot" because he refused to give the same materialist interpretation of evolution that Darwin's followers(and Darwin himself, to a degree) so often adopt.
Reply -
100%
thesilvershields1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Mutainia, you seem to be proud of the fact that you're not a 'liberal,' but you fail to realize that you're an imbecile. 'Muslims' do not owe anyone an apology. Al-Qaeda is not the same as all Muslims you ignorant fool. Grow up.
Reply
As for evolution, to the redneck trash out there still whining about Darwin, he did not 'invent' the idea of evolution, which goes back to the ancient Greeks, who simply 'discovered' a rather obvious fact to anyone who knows anything about anthropology and prehistory. Your beliefs are irrelevant. They do not determine fact. -
-
100%
ckfred1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Will the fact that the Church of England, and presumably the entire Anglican Communion, will apologize to Charles Darwin get evangelical Christians to believe in evolution or even intelligent design?
Reply
Even the Roman Catholic Church has decreed that evolution is the only theory of creation that can be taught in science classes, whether in parochial grade schools or Catholic universities, such as Notre Dame. -
0%
willbrennanco1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, I think the rift between Darwinism and Creationism could be bridged. It's largely a question of details and both sides being adamant or unbending in their views. Darwin ruled out any 'God' influence in evolution, and said it was merely survivalism, but my view is this - even animals, in the process of living and surviving, have to call on a power beyond themselves, if they are going to survive in the brutal world of the food chain. Many times this power is fear, but fear comes out of belief that they are going to live beyond this moment.
Reply
So an animal uses every instinct and learned behavior, every ounce of courage and guile, every strategy it can, in order to survive. Both Darwin and Christian church would agree on this point. But where they split is over where that extra something that allows them to survive comes from. I would say it comes from something beyond the animal - call it whatever you like : God, Allah, The Force, the oneness of all things, inherent life energy, universal intelligence, whatever. But it's the thing that allows for leaps in cognition and learning, new methods of survival. We as humans do it all the time. We as humans evolve constantly in our jobs, our marriages, our relationships with society, with our town, neighbors, you name it. No one is the same person they were ten years ago. We all learn, we all evolve. Well, most of us.
But getting back to Darwinism, if Darwinists just allowed that, while proclaiming that the process of evolution as detailed by Darwin, is scientifically accurate, there must have been a higher intelligence coursing through these animals, since we as humans came from them and are connected inextricably to them - so we all partook of the same extra stuff I was talking about, and still do - let's call it inspiration - and used it to survive. Isn't that allowing that God, or whatever you want to call him or it, that thing that the Jews wisely deemed not to name - the
great life force of the universe, was and is at work in the evolutionary process? If we can allow that, then it satisfies religionists who feel - rightly - that God has been pulled - wrongly, out of the equation, by Darwin.-
-
100%
Tangent0011 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
God was pulled out of the scientific equation by Bacon, well before Darwin. Speculation of formal and final causation were removed from scientific inquiry as much to protect the church as to protect science.
Reply
Science simply cannot function correctly unless it is rooted in the empirical and the rational. Using God to 'fill the gaps' has proven to be folly again and again. Do not mistake scientific fact for 'truth'. All of science could be complete and consistent, and God could still show up. Just because the molecular angle of water molecules tend to form into hexagonal crystals when frozen, doesn't make snowflakes any less beautiful or God any less relevant if that is the path you have chosen.
What science DOES do is keep people from using it to force philosophies on others. Would it be enough for science to accept metaphysical causation, or would that causation need to be called 'God'? But then, which God?-
50%
willbrennanco1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To me, as a Buddhist, I think causation is god. God is cause and effect. God is the gigantic overarching web of life that is ruled everywhere in every dimension by the law of cause and effect. To say that god or life force or enlightened energy is seperate from cause and effect is to misunderstand the depth and complexity of cause and effect. Cause and effect isn't cold and rigid, it's labrynthine and incredibly complex, and it includes all energies, quantum physics wave energies, the interconnectedness of all matter at the sub atomic level, how human influence effects electrons, all of these thngs we're just finding out about are all ruled by the law of cause and effect, even if we can't map all the causations and results.
Reply
So... when a 21st Century scientist talks about emperical proof, he's like a sturrborn mule who won't move until you can show the mule that the puddle isn't a hole in the ground. Everything will be proved, but everything doesn't have to be proven at once. This is the purpose of philosophy, and it's in science's best interest to begin to accept the fact that in the brave new world of quantum physics, (which is just a name for the discovery of how it all works at the most elemental) science needs to tread lightly into the nether regions of philosophy, to try and tie the unexplained ends, to lead thought onward, until the results can be empirically measured.-
100%
RickyDawkins1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Reply
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established. -
100%
Dionys1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"To me, as a Buddhist, I think causation is god. God is cause and effect. God is the gigantic overarching web of life that is ruled everywhere in every dimension by the law of cause and effect."
Reply
If you're going to steal Gudo Nishijima's understanding of 'God' as causality (though you probably read it in Brad Warner's book), you should really offer an attribution. Even if he is not your teacher. Offering someone else's wisdom as your own violates a number of precepts. -
Neutral
rivermint1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
From a Buddhist perspective I am not sure it matters at all. In his discussion of causality and karma the Buddha was mostly concerned about the acretion and dissolution of mental formations through habit.
Reply
Also though quantum physics is indeed wierd, uncertian and interesting I think that it is too early to say what any of it means.
-
-
-
-
Neutral
ckfred1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Farmhouse2001,
Reply
What do you think of churches such as the United Methodist Church or the Roman Catholic Church that believe that God was totally responsible for the creation of earth through evolution and not by the story in Chapter 2 of Genesis? Remember that there are two creation stores in Genesis, and Chapter 1 lines up quite nicely with evolution in terms of the order in which various species show up on earth. -
willbrennancoComment removed: Spam
-
100%
darthanakin141 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We should also remember that genetics, very important to modern biology and evolution, was first correctly described by Gregor Mendel-an Austrian monk who lived at the same time as Darwin. His work was ignored by Darwin(whose own genetic theory was basically crap) and most other scientists for forty years. Many great discoveries in science were made by religious people. One of the people who discovered the big bang was a Belgian Priest named Lemaitre. Copernicus was a canon in a church. And of course it is well known that many great scientists like Newton were religion men(even if their opinions were not always orthodox.) Science and relgion need not be at war. In fact, many of hese scientists were motivated by their faith to better understand God's creation.
Reply-
100%
Tangent0011 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, most scientists have come from a religious background until relatively recently. This is largely because a higher education was simply not available unless one was very wealthy or joined a religious order that had access to the great church libraries.
Reply
-
-
100%
RimeBuddha1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hi NotreDameGal,
Reply
The Lady Hope story is shown to be false by interviews with Darwin's daughters, the best source cited.
Moreover, you are using several logical fallacies in your arguments.
First - The validity of the Theory of Evolution is NOT affected at all by Darwin's actions or lack of Actions at the end of his life.
The logical fallacy you are using is called 'Appeal to Authority.'
Also, you answer the many posts that the Lady Hope Account is false by asking, "Has it ever been proven to be false." This is another fallacy in that you are asking someone to prove a negative. I might as well ask you to prove that there are no antelopes in Kansas with Bunny Heads and Silk Pajamas.
You ask "Did they talk to her" (meaning talk to Lady Hope who has been dead for many years). This is another fallacy as asking a liar to deny their lie is not probative.
As a matter of logic, even if there are legitimate criticisms of a theory it does NOT imply proof of a competing theory. Such practices fall into the formula " Blah Blah Blah Blah Blay - Therefore God Exists." An example is "I had cheese for Breakfast, Therefore God Exists."
Another matter to consider is Kant's criticism of Rene' Descartes (and with that, Anselm of Canterbury), In answer to the "Ontological Theory," Kant replied with the often-cited phrase, "Existence is not predicate (a necessary characteristic) of a Supreme Being." In other words, considering 'God' by our own rules and expectations is illogical as any deity of sufficient power to create this universe would not be bound by its rules - including the rules about existing or not existing.
For your comfort, I suggest that you consider that a superior God would create a world where evolution is the mechanism of creation. A God that created a static world would be a bit of a hack. Creating the Universe as it is - with Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Evolution, Geological Conformity and all the other discoveries of Science - is the work of a Truly Superior Deity!
Meanwhile, here's Wikipedia's Link to Lady Hope Story. It is a pretty clear reading of this Non-controversy,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Hope
Sincerely,
RB-
67%
thesilvershields1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well said RimeBuddha, unfortunately I know people like NotreDameGal. She is a fanatical Catholic and thus only looks for 'evidence' that supports her pre-existing belief. She lacks the understanding that education is meant to open one's mind to new ideas and concepts that one has not previously believed or understood. She refuses such concepts and picks and chooses what to accept and believe in to make it easy for her 'faith.' She is the worst type of hypocrite, and is all too common in religion.
Reply -
-
-
0%
REVCHRISTOPHER1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
EVOLUTION IS A MONOLITHIC PHILOSOPHY CALLED "SCIENCE." WE CANNOT CONVINCE ANYONE IN THE NEWS AND FLASH-POSTS ON THE INTERNET ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD NOR EVOLUTION. I BELIEVE WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS TO EDUCATE SCHOOL CHILDREN AND SCIENTISTS ABOUT SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM AS WELL AS EVOLUTION. I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO DO SO FOR 30 YEARS AND FOUND THAT BOTH RELIGION AND SCIENCE DO NOT LISTEN TO MUCH WITHOUT LOSING PATIENCE WITH EACH OTHER. AND WHY IS THAT? IT IS BECAUSE NO ONE IS WILLING TO LEARN FROM EACH OTHER'S IDEAS AND EVIDENCE. I HAVE ALSO FOUND THAT THOSE WHO LABEL EACH OTHER WITH CURSES AND DIMINIUATIVE NAMES ARE THOSE WHO KEEP THE FIRE OF IGNORANCE BURNING.
Reply -
0%
ebabette1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i hate to disappoint you great scientist but u are wrong and if it was that simple why can't you duplicate as to how it was done . you can't i know you can't. i was not a freak accident i was designed by GOD and yes Dariwin was wrong and a fool and that is probably why he is burning in hell at this very moment just because you don't believe does not make it so. My creator is GOD almighty and not a monkey from a freak accident. God has given us a choice heaven or hell, life or death He says choose LIFE you people are so stupid wake up.
Reply-
100%
retrofit811 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We can't duplicate how it was done because as humans, we don't know enough about science - particularly, quantum theory - and quantum theory is where it would have occurred.
Reply
Evolution is certainly not a "freak accident" as you imply. It is the long-term genetic adaptability and trait inheritance of creatures, whereby they "work" better in their respective environments.
You also say "just because you believe it doesn't make it so." I suggest you apply that nugget of wisdom to your own Christian faith. Evolution has MOUNTAINS of evidence, whereas the existence of God has yet to be demonstrated.
You're related to apes. Get over it.-
0%
Cong1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Whats up Retrofit? Evolution has mountains of man made studies, ideas, microscopic views and theories that have not disproven God either. If you want to get technical what we call Science actually shows how perfectly we were designed to function. It's easy for you to denounce him because you haven't experienced Gods power in your life, but that is because you refuse to believe that he exists, and by the way unlike many in this room that simply want to argue in Gods favor for the sake of arguing, I on the other hand do undersand why it is so difficult for many to believe in God. As humans we are used to having a beginning and an end which makes it very difficult for us to fathom anything else. God does not prove himself to us because he doesn't have to. That is why it is called Faith. I can only speak for myself when I say, that I have experienced Gods power in my life and in the life of my family first hand. I have experienced miracles because I believed in him and believed that God was able to perform them. See, If you don't believe that he exists at all then you will never experience his power in your life. Many people just say I'll believe it when I see it which to me is disheartening because I know that on that day that they actually see it with their own eyes, it will be too late to accept it. The one thing that you will not be able to say is that no one ever spoke to you about God.....
Reply -
-
-
100%
smithichie1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We all begin life as part of a race with 100s of millions of other sperm. Only one can enter and if ANY other sperm had met your mother's egg, YOU wouldn't exist.
Reply
If this isn't evidence of the power of random events, I don't know what is. -
100%
Bluedragon9121 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Let's assume that Creationism did happen and that the Bible is a literal story of such an event:
Reply
God created Adam, from clay, and Eve, from Adam's rib.
Therefore 2 people existed.
1 man and 1 woman
Total population: 2
After being expelled from the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve had 2 children. Cain and Abel.
3 men and 1 woman
Total population:4
After killing said brother, Cain left on his own. He then found...
wait for it...
...a wife???
Where'd she come from???
The only woman on Earth was his mother!
That, children, is called "incest".
And it is usually frowned on by the Church of __________. -
-
-
-
0%
mMarvinotis1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, this is all one big biological accident in the middle of outer space. I bet when you die you find out the Truth. Ever heard of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Everything is winding down, falling apart, decaying...oh but wait...first we evolved into a higher form and now it's winding down...how did man and woman evolve at the same time? Pretty convenient. How did the bees and flowers evolve at the same time? Also pretty convenient...Darwin had the equivalent of a second grade education compared to today's standards. He didn't know anything about DNA! You just can't admit there is a God. Yeah, it all just happened...good luck with all that.
Reply-
100%
smithichie1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Only as 'convenient' as the Sun. The Earth is not a closed system, there is an abundance of free energy to fuel reactions.
Reply
There a plenty of people who accept evolution while believing in a god, the last Pope comes to mind. You just can't admit that if there is a god, evolution was part of it's plan. -
100%
Coatl1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"irst we evolved into a higher form and now it's winding down."
Reply
Completely false, 2nd law is not about complexity nor order, it's about distribution of energy within systems!
"how did man and woman evolve at the same time?"
Ever heard of hermaphrodite species?
"How did the bees and flowers evolve at the same time?"
It's more than likely that some kind of bee existed before the flowers, but when the flowers began to evlove, bees began to specialize.
-
-
100%
retrofit811 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To NotreDameGal and in concord with RimeBuddha -
Reply
Yes, it's quite well-known actually that Darwin's daughter Henrietta had refuted claims that Darwin recanted to Christianity on his deathbed.
It's also been discounted by many historians. Read Kevin Padian's "The Darwin Legend".
His last words were to his wife Emma: "Remember what a good wife you've been." -
-
-
100%
sebborn1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Darwin and the bible do not disagree. The bilble gives exactly the same sequence as Darwin, it does not say how God created the world and all living things, just the order. Nothing he said goes against the fundamentals except possibly for the timeline. For that you need to refer to Mr. Einstein and relativity. Who can be so presumptious as to claim that what we perceive is a day is the same for God. As I see it, God put all the rules in palce, even to making water expand as it freezes for example, and then gave everything a nudge - the "Big Bang", how elegant that things fell into place as a result.
Reply-
100%
Bluedragon9121 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Now you are the type of open minded person that I find so refreshing after drowning in a sea of Evangelists and Fundamentalists. It makes me think that evolution is having some sort of effect.
Reply
Or are they one in the same? The point still stands.
-
-
-
-
100%
retrofit811 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I just don't understand how evolution remains unaccepted in the Christian community, despite overwhelming empirical evidence (otherwise know as "fact").
Reply
Why is an omnipotent being creating the entire universe with a whim and a wave of his hand so much more plausible than evolution? I fail to understand this reasoning.
Can a Christian explain this? Without falling into fallacious rhetoric?-
-
100%
retrofit811 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You say the Bible gives exactly the same sequence as Darwin - care to give me a couple citations?
Reply
The rest of your post sounds a very "Intelligent Design"-ish, which is merely Creationism gelatinized with bits of evolution, to render it more palatable for non-believers.
In actuality, your post does not answer my question. I'm asking "What about creationism is more plausible than evolution?" You fail to address that.-
0%
sebborn1 year, 3 months ago
-
100%
retrofit811 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If there are only two evolutionary starting points - the sea and the land - then there is a 50% probability they would be in agreement by random chance anyway. For me, this supposition is not evidence of their agreement, merely a "happy" coincidence.
Reply
Thank you for clarifying your point. While I cannot believe creationism/evolution are in agreement based on what you've said - or on what I've just calculated - it is an interesting thought, and I wonder if you have any other parallels to draw between the two.-
Neutral
wildman65571 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Let there be light: Big Bang
Reply
Separate light from darkness: The light clumping into planets, etc.
Now we switch to a Earth point of view:
Separate water from water: It is a reducing atmosphere that is opaque so there are clouds above (water) and the earth is cooled so there is water below (seas).
Vegetation
Now there are the heavenly bodies: The vegetation created O2 which made the atmosphere transparent so the heavenly bodies can be seen (earthly point of view)
Sea Creatures
Birds: Dinosaurs are birds and had feathers.
Age of mammals
People: Scientists can trace all humans back to one woman genetically.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Green-Gal1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LaBurladora.
Reply
Wrong church. That was the CATHOLIC Church. This is the Church of England .
The The Inquisition was mostly in Spain and other Catholic counties, though The Inquisition practiced in England, it was then still the Catholic Church, not the Anglican.
But you are right in another way, the Catholic church should apologize for Priests and Nuns for raping children and then declaring bankruptcy when victims came to sue, signing The Compact with Adolf and leaving millions to die, using Religious Tax Exempt Status to promote political ideology in America, and the list goes on....and on.... -
100%
RimeBuddha1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hi Pastor Pat,
Reply
You argument that the Big Bang had to happen according to the rules of Relativity is not correct.
Before the origin of the universe, the Rules of the Universe did not Exist. There was NO Gravity, NO Time, NO Linear Measurements, NO First or Second Law of Thermodynamics and NO Special Relativity or General Relativity.
There is also NO Requirement of an 'outside source.'
Moreover, we are still cataloging the Rules and Laws by which this universe operates. We do know that particles pop into and out of existence and that we can catalogue such events. We also know that we understand the Relativistic Expansion of the Universe and related events that take us very close to the Big Bang. We can get as close as the 'Planck Interval.'
The so-called Planck Interval (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_interval) is on the order of 10^44 seconds, a number complicated by the fact that prior to this interval, time itself did not necessarily exist. Speaking of events happening 'before the big bang' have a similar disconnect in that there Is No Before.
The fact is that we don't yet understand the origin of the universe. The universe may, in fact, be found to exist for no reason or cause. This is an idea that is exciting in that it shows the pure and powerful majesty of creation in a mode of thought that has no limitation - including the limitation of a creator.
I terms of your faith - and I do respect your faith - you might consider that it is NOT Evolution that denies your God. It is, rather, your concept of God that is too limited. Thinking that God has to obey laws that are so very mundane - so very human - takes away the magic and leaves God as a banal actor in an even more banal morality play. A God that is in the very fabric of creation as well as in the human heart plays a lot better in comparison to the incredible story of The Big Bang, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory and Evolution.
An angry, ill-tempered and jealous God, as described in the Bible, whose entirety of personality is based on getting humans to worship him pales by comparison.
I'll cite your post below for your easy reference.
Sincerely,
RB
Pastor Pat wrote:
"pastorpat10 minutes ago If you believe in the big bang theory, you should take not of the fact that it was atheistic evolutionists and not the church that had a problem with it. The fist and second laws of thermo dynamics require there to have been an "outside source" in order to create the bang.. It is imposible for it to happen from within."-
Neutral
willbrennanco1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Rime Buddha
Reply
I've thought about this more than a few times, and while the theory of the Big Bang seems to be logical, it seems to explain the movement of galexies and everything in space spreading out, how can you conceive of something exploding and creating the universe and not have it be subject to the law of cause and effect. In other words, what brought whatever it was to the point of the Big Bang? What happened to set up the conditions that accounted for the Big Bang? Then you're in philosophical territory, which is to say, it's eternal, everything, the universe. There is no beginning or end to it. Kind of like god. -
-
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.