aguest
| while I agree that a belief in evolution does not necessarily imply atheism, I cannot see how atheism cannot equate to a belief in evolution (is there something besides evolution or creation?). |
there are many alternatives to Darwinian evolution and to creationism that have been proposed over time, some examples (among many) of non creationist alternatives to evolution are
orthogenesis
neo-Lamarkianism
process structuralism
saltationism
Peace to you too
curtains
evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
yeah - great to thrash out this subject
If one wants to have a rational discussion then one must be patient and not demean others.
Another point is to be clear about what terms mean and what their implications are. To do this one has to establish how they are using the term. For example I see that you aguest use evolutionsit to mean different things. You talk about a pure evolutionist - by this do you mean an atheist? I ask because to me evolution is separate from atheism and it is separate from theism. It cannot be used to support either atheism or theism to exclude the other. In other words I have come to the conclusion that evolution is compatible with both atheism and theism. So when I use the term evolution I will be talking about evolution itself and not about theism or atheism.
according to the world population clock, we're going to hit the magic 7 billion number this year.
that's 7,000,000,000,000 living human beings on this planet.
the world is about to change, again.
no problem lion cask, peace and goodwill to you.
I agree with beksbks and would even go further and suggest that Paris needs all of France to sustain it. Same goes for London, Beijing etc. I think I agree with BTS when he suggests looking to smaller communites and would add that they need to be as self sustaining as they can and they need to be able to move, diversify and adapt when local resources become overworked. This is something we can work on now even as individuals. But on a larger scale, I think we need to be looking wider afield than the earth. Imagine if we could look back at the earth from another planet and feel a sense of pride when it regains its vigour and vibrancy.
i hope you all have a wonderful weekend and see you next year!.
you too minimus
according to the world population clock, we're going to hit the magic 7 billion number this year.
that's 7,000,000,000,000 living human beings on this planet.
the world is about to change, again.
lion cask
7,000,000,000,000 I think that's three too many zero's. The above figure would be 7 trillion Quite right, I've used too many zeros. It should be 7,000,000,000. Seven milliard British scale. My bad for not proof reading my OP before hitting the submit button. |
my humble apologies to you Listener, I was so certain Lion cask would not make such a simple error
in another thread, bts quoted this catholic doctrinal paraphrasing of adam and eve:.
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p7.shtml#390.
god created man in his image and established him in his friendship.
exactly what I was going to say psac
Its funny that you guys are debating evolution in a thread about the Catholic perspective when the Catholic perspecitve accepts Evolution. |
but I disagree that abiogenises can be see as being as distinct from evolution as you and bohm are maintaining. Well at least for the purposes of this thread - in the context of this thread I would expect that the problematic aspect of leaping from non self replicating and non self containing to self containing and self replicating would be grist to the mill.
and bohm here is mad dawgs reply to you. It is plain enough to me
Are you familiar with the terms: Quantum fluctuations of nothingness? Chemical evolution? How about prebiotic evolution? This is what is taught at Harvard. Look them up, Google is your friend. All I did was strip them of the mumbo jumbo and used plain English. Remember, if you believe in evolution, you cannot escape the conclusion that we evolved from rocks. An absurd idea. |
according to the world population clock, we're going to hit the magic 7 billion number this year.
that's 7,000,000,000,000 living human beings on this planet.
the world is about to change, again.
listener but there is the possibilty that Lion Cask is using the scale that is used by the many rather than the few.
take a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales#Short_scale_countries_and_regions
in another thread, bts quoted this catholic doctrinal paraphrasing of adam and eve:.
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p7.shtml#390.
god created man in his image and established him in his friendship.
Bohm
But doesn't his argument from ridicule highlight a weakness in the theory of evolution. I doubt that mad dawg would have used that argument if it did not support his reasoning.
Apart from the above do you not consider that rocks may have been a part of evolution itself - like this for example
in another thread, bts quoted this catholic doctrinal paraphrasing of adam and eve:.
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p7.shtml#390.
god created man in his image and established him in his friendship.
bohm, as far as I know, rocks aka minerals, are indeed thought to play an important part in evolution. Porous rocks are also thought to have provided the location for evolution to take place. Additionally rocks are the place scientists go to to examine what evidence there is of trace minerals involved in the evolution of life and also to look for fossilized organisms. The evidence is incomplete and difficult to read.
