questfortruth
Well-Known Member
But I am using the mind. If there is one God, and He is almighty, why do children die of cancer?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Charles Darwin a false, non-orthodox Christian?
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
If I could give a clear answer to that I would be God, and I am not
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Because the satan is god. He is dead god, hence he is Death, the god of death.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
What does that have to do with the answer I gave?
Do you see non-christians as satan?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Are you deliberately trying to post the most irrelevant comments possible? It doesn't change the fact that we can detect dark matter by its influence on visible matter. And it is an interaction anyway, the fact that it is mediated by the curvature of space-time, rather than a force, is totally irrelevant.
Perhaps you're just desperately running away from the fact that your original 'point' did nothing to back up your absurd claim that dark matter is relevant to the existence of your god or to evolution...?
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
But it can not be detected directly by detectors, because it has no interaction with them.
Gravity is not interaction& it drops to zero on short distances.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Are you actually even being serious any more? Of course it's an interaction and of course visible matter in the universe serves as a detector for dark matter.
And all this foolish nonsense is still an obvious ploy to run away from facing the point that you haven't even begun to justify your absurd assertions that dark matter has anything to do with evolution or the existence of your god.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
But it is not included in the Standard Model of particles. Because on short distances it drops to zero.
C'mon now! God kills enormous numbers of people all through the bible, and in the NT part [he] kills [his] own son for no valid reason. Name one person that Satan is said (in the bible) to have killed.
Sounds like you just made that up. Darwin says nothing of the kind. If I'm wrong, quote me Darwin's words.
As I read it, Darwin had outgrown his faith but remained respectful, not least for his wife's sake.
So what?
I have no idea why you say that. It certainly doesn't follow from anything you said.
And Darwin launched the theory of evolution which in its modern form is the overarching theory of biology, and his critics, you included, have never once made even the teensiest scientific scratch on it.
Last edited:
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
I'm not talking to God here, I'm talking to you. You're the one saying things are false because you don't like them.
Unless you're claiming to be God (and wouldn't that be another sin?).
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Irrelevant.
What does? Gravity obviously doesn't. Neither do the interactions described by the standard model.
And you're still blatantly running away from dealing with the fact that you totally failed to justify your assertions that dark matter had anything to do with the existence of your god or evolution.
PureX
Veteran Member
I think it's sad that you would slander the gift of insight that Darwin gave to humanity just because you, personally, don't want to accept it.
How selfish is that?
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Only a tad selfish
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
There appears to be misunderstanding about Darwin and his theory of natural selection, on both sides of the philosophical spectrum. Darwin was from England in the 1800s, which had been highly forested, hunted and developed by humans, since before the time of Rome. The England of his day, was a world wide empire that traded with the world, with exotic species of world plants in many home gardens.
That living environment was so influenced by the actions of man, that a theory of natural selection made little sense in that environment. So much of its contemporary flora and fauna was influenced by the actions of man over the centuries; development and trade. It could be argued this environment was a product of artificial selection. Humans cuts down the forest and set up a farm. This farm is not natural. It may contain seed from other countries; corn. Without the trees many birds leave but some stay. The farmer also plants a fig tree, which is not indigenous, but strives there, etc.
Darwin was fortunate and had the opportunity to travel to a remote area of the world, that had never been developed, but had remained raw and natural; Galapagos Islands. There he saw more enduring ancient species of flora and fauna that changed little over time. It was all very lush and healthy and it survived like paradise without humans. His theory of natural selection had a lab, where others could see natural selection in action. Natural selection was much slower to change, than artificial selection. It also seemed to narrow things down to enduring species. England due to man and artificial selection was more in flux.
Biology and science, before the invention of the microscope, had a popular theory that was based on the notion of the spontaneous generation of life. It was thought life could appear anywhere, out of nothing. This was inferred, for example, by watching changes in filtered fruit juices, such a fermentation, at a time before science could see and prove the concept of microorganisms. Such experiments made it appeared like life could just appear or change quickly.
That type of thinking in science was still around at the time of Darwin. Darwin's theory of Natural selection was more about the persistence of life, and life building on existing ancient foundations, rather than constantly appearing with new variants via spontaneous generation; variant of artificial selection like in urban England. The dog breeder may choose a future line of dogs, based on color or unique fur; artificial selection and spontaneous generation of a new breed, but nature would choose via a more enduring standard; natural selection, such as the wolf.
Galapagos did not have all the variety expected of spontaneous generation, but rather it recycled existing things from ancient times. This enduring platform was explained via selective advantages and not based on human vanity and influence; spontaneous generation.
Darwin's theory was not designed to be offensive to religion, but to challenge the pseudo-science of the status quo in his day. It was the early debate between large scale mutations, versus tiny steps in terms of change; spontaneous generation versus conserved platforms, with minor tweaks It was a sense of order versus random. Science would go backwards in the early 20th century and get bogged down once again on spontaneous generation via random change. But the missing links cannot be easily found.
In many ways the early science debate between Darwin and his contemporaries was Noah's ark; modern enduring platform, versus the original creation where any platform would have been possible. Religion was enduring but science was still in flux.
That living environment was so influenced by the actions of man, that a theory of natural selection made little sense in that environment. So much of its contemporary flora and fauna was influenced by the actions of man over the centuries; development and trade. It could be argued this environment was a product of artificial selection. Humans cuts down the forest and set up a farm. This farm is not natural. It may contain seed from other countries; corn. Without the trees many birds leave but some stay. The farmer also plants a fig tree, which is not indigenous, but strives there, etc.
Darwin was fortunate and had the opportunity to travel to a remote area of the world, that had never been developed, but had remained raw and natural; Galapagos Islands. There he saw more enduring ancient species of flora and fauna that changed little over time. It was all very lush and healthy and it survived like paradise without humans. His theory of natural selection had a lab, where others could see natural selection in action. Natural selection was much slower to change, than artificial selection. It also seemed to narrow things down to enduring species. England due to man and artificial selection was more in flux.
Biology and science, before the invention of the microscope, had a popular theory that was based on the notion of the spontaneous generation of life. It was thought life could appear anywhere, out of nothing. This was inferred, for example, by watching changes in filtered fruit juices, such a fermentation, at a time before science could see and prove the concept of microorganisms. Such experiments made it appeared like life could just appear or change quickly.
That type of thinking in science was still around at the time of Darwin. Darwin's theory of Natural selection was more about the persistence of life, and life building on existing ancient foundations, rather than constantly appearing with new variants via spontaneous generation; variant of artificial selection like in urban England. The dog breeder may choose a future line of dogs, based on color or unique fur; artificial selection and spontaneous generation of a new breed, but nature would choose via a more enduring standard; natural selection, such as the wolf.
Galapagos did not have all the variety expected of spontaneous generation, but rather it recycled existing things from ancient times. This enduring platform was explained via selective advantages and not based on human vanity and influence; spontaneous generation.
Darwin's theory was not designed to be offensive to religion, but to challenge the pseudo-science of the status quo in his day. It was the early debate between large scale mutations, versus tiny steps in terms of change; spontaneous generation versus conserved platforms, with minor tweaks It was a sense of order versus random. Science would go backwards in the early 20th century and get bogged down once again on spontaneous generation via random change. But the missing links cannot be easily found.
In many ways the early science debate between Darwin and his contemporaries was Noah's ark; modern enduring platform, versus the original creation where any platform would have been possible. Religion was enduring but science was still in flux.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Not if according to Bible verses, should I find them?
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Umm, you believe you are God?
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
There are two gods in total. Please speak in double gods language. Good one - God, bad one - satan. If somebody murders somebody, satan -the killer- is to blame. The God is Holy, Clean from any sin and connection with satan.
The law of gravity F=m*M/r^2 holds only for infinite density bodies (if the distance between them is small).
Yes: because there is double gods world, we need compromises between satan and God.
Darwinism is needed as a "peace deal" between Sense and Nonsense,
Capitalism is needed as a "peace deal" between the desire to die and the desire to live. The capitalists love the money, but Judas the Traitor has lost the only love he has - money and murdered himself.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
I am not a mammal, not an angel, hence I am .....?
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
A human being!
We Never Know
No Slack
Isn't that Kent Hovind who was arrested for.. -domestic violence in 2021
-federal mail fraud and criminal contempt in 2014
-tax evasion in 1996
-assault, battery, and burglary in 2002
Is that what godly christians do?