|
HunterCA -> RE: CO2 levels hit a record high.. (5/12/2015 2:14:02 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
quote:
ORIGINAL: Politesub53
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
quote:
ORIGINAL: HunterCA
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
"If any one says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen" (1 Jn. 4:20).
Casting that liar thing around a lot. Having trouble, maybe, understand something beyond your kin? Like maybe the person is like so many on here that just think one way out of idiocy and don't know any better. It doesn't make them a liar. It makes them an idiot. I'm sure if we all took a few moments we could come up with a couple of other reasons besides lying.
you are arguing with the bible?
wat wat?
Only half of it, they dont seem to consider the first half as it doesnt always support their arguments.
[;)]
the creationists belive genesis.
In Darwin's Origin of the Species historical sketch of work prior to his he states the following:
“The "Philosophy of Creation" has been treated in a masterly manner by the Rev. Baden Powell, in his "Essays on the Unity of Worlds", 1855. Nothing can be more striking than the manner in which he shows that the introduction of new species is "a regular, not a casual phenomenon," or, as Sir John Herschel expresses it, "a natural in contradistinction to a miraculous process.”
“Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique", and subsequently, 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertebres". In these works he up holds the doctrine that all species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species, by the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties, by the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain groups, and by the analogy of domestic productions. With respect to the means of modification, he attributed something to the direct action of the physical conditions of life, something to the crossing of already existing forms, and much to use and disuse, that is, to the effects of habit. To this latter agency he seems to attribute all the beautiful adaptations in nature;”
“The Hon. and Rev. W. Herbert, afterward Dean of Manchester, in the fourth volume of the "Horticultural Transactions", 1822, and in his work on the "Amaryllidaceae" (1837, pages 19, 339), declares that "horticultural experiments have established, beyond the possibility of refutation, that botanical species are only a higher and more permanent class of varieties." He extends the same view to animals”
Which, if you read who he was referring to, points out what a couple of church people were saying even befor him.
Later in the book Dsrwin says:
“It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets? Every one knows what is meant and is implied by such metaphorical expressions; and they are almost necessary for brevity. So again it is difficult to avoid personifying the word Nature; but I mean by nature, only the aggregate action and product of many natural laws, and by laws the sequence of events as ascertained by us. With a little familiarity such superficial objections will be forgotten.”
I personally have never found a science explane the origin of life, as opposed to the origin of species. Darwin relegated things to "Natural Laws" as seen above.
People who ponder the origin of life, as opposed to the origin of species, have come up with many sources. As far as science can measure, one is as good as another and the natural laws that exist haven't, to my knowledge, been explained. Well, we do measure things like strong and weak attractions, but we, to my knowledge don't know how they started.
I would propose that tolerant people would accept, as Darwin says, people observe natural laws in effect, and allow others to find the source of those laws as they wish.
|
|
|
|
