Why did you choose evolution then?
Evolution became popular not with the people but with government and business for selfish reasons. Each then could point and the unemployed and down and outs of society and say that “that just the way the world is” and have a better chance that people would accept it and not revolt.
Evolution is not science, it does not even qualify to regarded as a theory it is only an idea the has become the religion of wealth and politics.
Evolution is a twisted version of the Christian message - it is not original thinking by any means. It is full of zealots whose mission is to make life a meaningless existence for others. . . I could go on but I won’t
no please, go on. 
its hard to distil how awesome your post is, but particularly: you think ‘meaning’ has any place in science, and that an established scientific theory recognised by every scientist in the field isnt scientific.
No. No You go on!
Both your statements are so untrue!!! Please come out into the light so we can have a good look.
Non sequitur.
This gets DR.S’s seal of ridiculousness.
no1nose,
You might consider one of two approaches; provide some backing to support you broad generalizations, or, don’t make broad generalizations. You’re welcome to express your opinions, but if you wish to make flat statements of ‘fact’, the facts only have credibility to the extent that there is some sort of evidence offered supporting those facts. Your comments that evolution is neither science or theory isn’t well supported and your suggestion that, “Evolution is a twisted version of the Christian message” is a bit over the top.
Explanations and supporting evidence please?
JT
You’re thinking of Eugenics,not evolution.
Good post there Shyster.
The concept of evolution had been in the works for a bout a hundred years before Darwin ever came around. If you read Schopenhauer he talks of “evolution” to the point where I almost believe that Darwin ripped him off.
It is almost a fact that Freud ripped off Schopenhauer and was even asked about it, but that’s another story.
Anyway, evolution had its roots in a curiosity about the natural world, by Europeans that resented the middle-eastern religion that had been forced on them.
In my experience people usually use one line put downs when they cannot use reason. And when they can’t be bothered with something then they don’t bother at all. Since you have bothered to post a one line put down type of reply I must assume that you really have no reason to say what I have posted is ridiculous.
I sometimes wonder why the destitute have portraits of the Queen. It’s kind of a victim mentality to see what is oppressing them as their friend. Shop keepers pay insurance money to their mobster “friends†and the victims of a sick world view such as evolution see it as . . . well you tell me.
Pardon me for repeating myself but:
If one’s bothers to actually study where Darwin got his idea’s you will find that it was from his grandfather and the Victorian society around him. There is a one to one correlation of themes between Christianity and Evolution. This is no accident; Darwin took from Christian thought and simply gave things a different name. For example redemption became survival and transformation became mutation. The main differences are the Christianity is concerned with the redemption of the unfit and Evolution then focused on the survival of the fittest (that is until it became PC incorrect). The other main difference is that in Christianity God is in charge whereas in Evolution things happen by chance.
When we take evolution seriously we find that it leads us back to it roots in Christianity. For example, it turns out Jesus is the evolutionary prototype for mankind’s next evolutionary leap - exactly fulfilling the evolutionary requirements for such a prototype. A mutant at birth, and as such was the first member of a new species who proved his staying power by being resurrected. As such members of the old species are faced with the choice of transforming and becoming like Jesus or becoming extinct.
If evolution is true then who in history would be a prototype for human evolution?
According to evolutionary theory mankind should become like Jesus or perish. Who was different at birth and who is the greatest survivor? Jesus is the most logical choice, no one else in history has had as much influence
While Jesus did not procreate - his “genes” are in billions of people. In accepting Jesus he becomes a part of us and we become a part of him. Each of us becomes a new person with new qualities that we inherit from him. A babe in the womb has the qualities of both its mother and its father. When we accept Jesus, God becomes our new and eternal father. And as new beings each of us takes up the qualities of Jesus. Jesus is loving and forgiving and we become like him. Jesus has already died and risen to eternal life and from union with Jesus we inherit everlasting life.
You obviously have no clue what evolution is,and instead have created your own neo-apologetic fantasy of what you think it is. To get into a serious refutation would just be wasting both of our time, given your obvious biases and malunderstanding.
Given that you provided no facts to support your wild assertions,
my reply was most apropriate.
My seal of ridiculousness stands sure.
No1nose,
You should read Schopenhauer’s collection of short essays.
Anyway, the idea pre-Darwin was that god made all of the creatures to live in and do what they did. This thought lead to racism to a large degree, because it was thought that mixed birth would cause problems in the offspring. That’s just an aside though.
The real problem was that the idea of animals fitting into their own special environment posed many problems for thinkers and they were desperate to find better answers. There nothing sinister to it.
yeah sure
Race is not a biblical concept. There are six levels of identity in the Bible: mankind, nations, tribes, families, individuals, and children
I’m not destitute, but I do have portraits of 2 Queens (Elizabeth I and Elizabeth II). Because I love them…that’s why.
Race is not a biblical concept.
Yes it does. Where do black people come from in the bible?
Also, race is implied if each animal is meant to be or stay where it was designed for.
.
The Bible does not distinguish between people as to race. And rightly so as there is no genetic basis for race – the most accurate thing that can be said is that people are most similar to those living near them and least similar to those who live far away. The word “race†or its concept of identity based on qualities of appearance is not found in the Bible.
In the Old Testament we do find a selection process going on. For example with Noah, God selected one man from all of humanity. Before Noah there were no nations but after him his descendents were divided into nations. We then find that of all the nations of the earth, God selected only one when he called Abraham. And then Abraham’s descendents were divided into the even smaller unit of tribes from which God then chose Judah. From the tribe of Judah, God chose the family of Jesse. And from the family of Jesse, God chose a son, David. It was then said that there was one selection left – the saviour, the second Adam, who would be a son of David. Would this second Adam be exactly the same as the first? The answer is no. The first Adam disobeyed God, the second Adam would choose to obey. The second Adam is different than the first; as Christians we know him as Jesus.
Lets go back to Adam and Eve for a moment because there is something there that is important for us to understand. That is, when Adam and Eve disobeyed God we were in them waiting to be born. We were there when it happened and even though we did not disobey God ourselves we still ended up suffering the consequences of what they did. In this case it was a bad thing but being “in†someone when they do something right can be a good thing for us. For example in the book of Hebrews there is Levi:
“One might even say that Levi . ., paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor. Heb 7:9-10.
What is interesting about Levi is that he was counted as having paid because he was “in†Abraham (waiting to be born) when Abraham paid. This is important because as we will see we are reconciled with God by being in this second Adam.
Jesus was a man but we are told that he was “conceived by the Holy Spirit.†That is, God and not man was his father. How this happened no one knows. But it meant that God was standing with him and would be “one†in him. And by being the second Adam he was the right person to take responsibility for what began in the Garden of Eden.
Both then ripped off Christianity. I think Niels Bohr had some really interesting things to say.
You might want to go back and check your facts.
Living things without a seed is an issue in the Bible. (see Garden of Eden post in religous section). Mules are this kind of cross breed. This issue is the inabliblity to produce offspring (new life).
In general the overall guiding principle in the Bible is that life comes from accepting what is different from ourselves. Men and women are different from each other and new life comes from their union. Homosexual relationships are condemned because they are like accepting like and do not produce new life. Similarly sexual relationships with close relatives are condemned. The Bible does not condemn interracial marriage but customs and economics usually favor marriage within established groups.
The ultimate is then in accepting God who is different from ourselves and always requires growth from us to sustain the relationship. But then the reward for this is eternal life.
The word “race” does not appear in the Bible nor does the word “accident” becuse these were unknown concepts.
The idea is that rational human thought is sequential and “linear†whereas reality is nonlinear and quantum. All theories then are like straight lines with reality being a curved discontinuous surface. The unconscious mind is capable of leaps of “inspired†thought which at times brings human thought into contact with reality. All theories in time are found to diverge from reality – evolution is no different, in time it will be abandoned as new information makes it obsolete.
Ok let’s take evolution as an example. There is much physical evidence that is nonlinear and discontinuous – there are species popping in and out of existence. And one of the great preoccupations of evolutionist is trying to shoehorn this evidence into a linear and sequential framework. We have comets and volcano and so on. Instead of accepting that nonlinear and quantum nature of reality we try and fit evidence into our limited thought processes.
Mathematicians cannot explain numbers. Physicists are unsure about matter and the forces of nature. And chemists don’t really understand chemical bonds. But when it comes to life, the most mysterious topic of all, evolutionists know it all. And everyone who disagrees with them for whatever reason is a bad person with a mental problem.
I think it is time to get real: Life is an open question and people should be able to have informed opinions with being called names.
The problem here is that you are accepting that Theory = Reality and at the same time saying that there are many problems with the “theory”. The actual shape of reality then can be very different from your theory. How different you don’t really know and as such you are in a no better position than anyone else in this debate. It would nice if evolutionists would take on board this fact and stop acting so pretentious. Actual reality is beyond the human mind and in the end it is like looking for the pot of gold under the rainbow - you never find it but you may cover some interesting ground.