Fascinating! You have documented evidence that scientists actually do something called "school/lab prayer" every morning and evening?
What exactly does that entail? Who's in charge? How have they managed to keep it secret for hundreds of years?
-
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 Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
What exactly does that entail? Who's in charge? How have they managed to keep it secret for hundreds of years?
And do they sing hymns, too?
The link doesn't address darwinism or evolution though.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
I find it rather depressing reading threads like this. Is the year 2020?
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
In 1871, another important work of Darwin appeared - "The Origin of Human and Sexual Selection", where Darwin argued in favor of the natural origin of human from animals (ape-like ancestors). So: 1) it's because of Darwin the girls think of angelic guys as of losers, and 2) Darwin said we were given birth by a monkey?
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I am happy to read this. Finally a Christian who got it right.
It is indeed a Christian Hell meant only for Christians
I'm confused.
Life scientists who do research related to biological evolution don't call it "Darwinism" because our modern understanding of biological evolution has vastly eclipsed the initial work of Darwin and is thus not "Darwinism."
In short, what on earth are you talking about?
Life scientists who do research related to biological evolution don't call it "Darwinism" because our modern understanding of biological evolution has vastly eclipsed the initial work of Darwin and is thus not "Darwinism."
In short, what on earth are you talking about?
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
I am saying, that the technical part of Science was conducted by an organization with a different name: not Science, but Natural Theology. The Natural Theologists have discovered many things and truths in nature, e.g. Pythagorean Theorem.
You are misquoting Darwin. You need to first understand Darwin's theory before you criticize it, correct?
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Before the advent of Darwinism, the concept of Creation was the only one, and there was no need to specifically prove it. It was based primarily on the book "Genesis", as well as on the interpretations of the Holy Fathers - such as the "Six Days" of St. Basil the Great.
The source of Creation is the Bible. If you deny Creation, then this destroys the Bible, and therefore it destroys your denial: how do you use a concept from a source, if source is not valid?
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
You said: "In 1871, another important work of Darwin appeared - "The Origin of Human and Sexual Selection", where Darwin argued in favor of the natural origin of human from animals (ape-like ancestors)."
Okay so far.
Then you said: "So: 1) it's because of Darwin the girls think of angelic guys as of losers, and 2) Darwin said we were given birth by a monkey?"
1) What?
2)
Again, show exactly where Darwin ever said that humans were given birth by a monkey.
He said population pressures over time led to evolution of differing traits. Over longer periods of time, this led to other species with slightly different traits from the ancestral population...which led to further evolution of populations with even more traits different then the ancestral population, and from any other descendant population existing contemporaneously. Process took millions of years.
Okay so far.
Then you said: "So: 1) it's because of Darwin the girls think of angelic guys as of losers, and 2) Darwin said we were given birth by a monkey?"
1) What?
2)
Again, show exactly where Darwin ever said that humans were given birth by a monkey. He said population pressures over time led to evolution of differing traits. Over longer periods of time, this led to other species with slightly different traits from the ancestral population...which led to further evolution of populations with even more traits different then the ancestral population, and from any other descendant population existing contemporaneously. Process took millions of years.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Evolution has the word "evolve" in it. This process goes slow....very slow.
Your father was not a monkey, neither was your grandfather, nor his father
But we all know that when we see monkeys doing their monkey "stuff" (I got hooked on this word by our friend [COLOR=#ffffff]@'mud[/COLOR] )
That most people really like it; maybe some recognition from the old days
I would not dismiss Darwin, and definitely not claim it to be wrong and absurd
You might be degraded back to monkey life, if it happens to be true
Last edited:
What about the thousands of other creation mythologies told by other religions throughout the world and across history? Biblical creationism was not the only story being told before biological evolution was studied with scientific methodologies.
I'm afraid I don't follow. Then again, I'm neither Christian nor a mythological literalist, so that could be why.
No, there was at least the idea of Lamarkian evolution, evolution through acquired traits. The common example is that giraffes got long necks because they kept stretching their necks out to get leaves high up on trees, so every giraffe generation resulted in giraffes with longer and longer necks.
Lamarckism - Wikipedia
Lamarckism | Facts, Theory, & Contrast with Darwinism
And since you're in a debate forum, I'm free to tell you that you're misquoting Darwin
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
1. The source of concept of Creation is Bible.
2. Darwinist denies the Creationism, thus, he denies Bible.
3. How can he use concept (for denial), if this concept has invalid source?
Are you suggesting that if the Bible hadn't been written, NO ONE ON EARTH would ever have thought up the idea that a deity 'created' all living things just the way they are? Seriously?
Darwin--and frankly, no biologist since--has needed the concept of creation in their understanding of evolution. They look at the diversity of life, and ask: How could this have happened?
The supposed explanation of creationism, that God just made everything that way, is not testable...and it does not match with what is observed in nature.
What does match with what is observed is change in the traits of populations over time. The best explanation of that is that populations respond to environmental pressures to allow some traits to survive and other traits to die out in a population.
The molecular aspect I wouldn't say is proven although it's gaining momentum.
For the first - as mentioned, creation mythologies* are found worldwide and many of these predate Christianity and the Bible. Are we supposed to ignore all those other creation mythologies and pretend they don't exist? I can't do that.
For the second - not necessarily, on three counts. On count one, "Darwinists" really are not a thing these days for reasons I I already mentioned. On count two, the few existing "Darwinists" wouldn't necessarily need to deny any particular creation mythology. On count two, denying one story out of a collection of mythologies doesn't mean one needs to deny all of them. Selective reading of mythological collections is not only common, but expected of the very people who hold those mythologies as sacred stories in their lives.
For the third - I still don't follow. Probably because the first two don't. But if it makes sense in your head, go for it I guess? *mythology = sacred stories told by various cultures to convey deep, non-literal truths