|
I see a celestial Darwin has put in an appearance
|
 RE: I see a celestial Darwin has put in an appearance
February 12, 2013 at 4:13 pm
(This post was last modified: February 12, 2013 at 4:14 pm by Ryantology.)
I think he belongs up there. The only people who have done more to aid the spread of atheism are the authors of holy books.
  (February 12, 2013 at 7:24 am)Zone Wrote: I'm not too sure if the historical Darwin would have appreciated having his image right next to the word atheist though. All he really did was reject Christianity in later life because he disagreed with the doctrine of hell. If you read the Origin of Species he used the word God quite a lot in there. He said god in his book, so what? He was also talking about his objections to christianity. This was in a time that going against the main religion at least would be dangers in different ways. He stepped on the religious tounge when he presented his work, don't you think it would be a big deal? Religion that his family (who pretty much paid for his education in at least one already failed career). But no he mentions god in his book and surely it is logical to conclude how he felt about mean ol atheists. 
CleanShavenJesus
The Man for His Time and Place  Religious Views: Church of the Latter-Day Dude (Dudeism)  
Creationists don't have theories. At best, they have untested ideas, which evaporate when tested. That or they're defined to be untestable at all.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
RE: I see a celestial Darwin has put in an appearance
February 12, 2013 at 5:52 pm
(This post was last modified: February 12, 2013 at 5:53 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(February 12, 2013 at 5:42 pm)TheLameMayWalk Wrote:(February 12, 2013 at 4:16 pm)Chuck Wrote: Better a evolutionist with monkey body and human brain than a creationist with human body and monkey brain. Bullshit. Creationists have no theory, merely an conclusively and abundantly disproven, yet tenaciously -clung-to assertion. Evolution is a theory which has been proven to the maximum practical degree to which any theory about biological world can be provn. It may not make creationist a monkey. But monkeys could not have made worse, or dumber intellectual judgement had they been put in the same spot as creationists. Creationists may be no monkey. But they squandered any difference between them and monkey, and is worth exactly as much as monkey's howls when they make pronouncements about this matter.
CleanShavenJesus
The Man for His Time and Place Religious Views: Church of the Latter-Day Dude (Dudeism) (February 12, 2013 at 5:52 pm)Chuck Wrote: Evolution is a theory which has been proven to the maximum practical degree to which any theory about biological world can be provn. Explain to me how that is, and how you came to that sort of conclusion? Who are you to brand it as such? Evolutionists can create their own theories on the matter, but evolution does not explain half of the things creationism (and Christianity as a whole) can explain. ronedee Wrote:Science doesn't have a good explaination for water ![[Image: YAAgdMk.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.imgur.com%2FYAAgdMk.gif) RE: I see a celestial Darwin has put in an appearance
February 12, 2013 at 5:57 pm
(This post was last modified: February 12, 2013 at 6:00 pm by Ryantology.)
(February 12, 2013 at 5:42 pm)TheLameMayWalk Wrote: They both believe in theories, neither totally proven. Creationism is a theory as much as tofurkey is poultry. Quote:Doesn't make the creationist have a monkey brain. As creationists evolved from primates, in a sense you definitely do have a 'monkey' brain. Quote:It doesn't make the creationist any dumber. Creationism is the result of being dumb, not the cause. Quote:evolution does not explain half of the things creationism (and Christianity as a whole) can explain. You're right, evolution does not explain half of what creationism can, because half of zero is still zero, and evolution explains much more than zero. RE: I see a celestial Darwin has put in an appearance
February 12, 2013 at 6:01 pm
(This post was last modified: February 12, 2013 at 6:03 pm by Cyberman.)
If an observation of the Universe has been tested repeatedly and finally becomes a descriptive model that not only explains whatever is under scrutiny but also can be used to makes predictions of how it ought to behave under varying circumstances, it becomes a theory. Even then, after reaching such a lofty height, it will continue to be tested against new observations and new advances in investigative methods. As it passes each test, confidence in the truth of the theory increases; even more so when it corresponds with other theories in different but related fields - not to mention leading to technology that works.
What in creationism comes anywhere close to that?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
![[Image: Darwin__6__gallery__300x400.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.brisbanetimes.com.au%2Fffximage%2F2009%2F02%2F12%2FDarwin__6__gallery__300x400.jpg)
