Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop All Amazon Fashion Up to 70% off Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Shop Amazon Fire TV Shop now Shop Fire HD 6 Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

staunch defenders of evolution theory: allergic to the present day?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 153 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jan 2013 18:36:57 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jan 2013 21:17:36 GMT
Last edited by the author on 27 Jan 2013 21:26:39 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jan 2013 21:25:20 GMT
Norm Deplume says:
Do you actually have a point to make other than demonstrating your ignorance of Darwin's and Wallace's ideas?

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jan 2013 21:28:33 GMT
Last edited by the author on 27 Jan 2013 21:29:56 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 27 Jan 2013 21:56:07 GMT
Spin says:
It is quite right to oppose the Theory of Evolution". There is no such theory. There is however "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection" in which the term "Evolution" simply means "development, progress" etc not a specific natural process as these psuedo-scientists claim. I oppose the "theory of evolution" and "Evolutionists", but I strongly defend Natural Selection and mutation.

Posted on 28 Jan 2013 06:51:51 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 28 Jan 2013 07:07:15 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jan 2013 09:23:36 GMT
AJ Murray says:
-"the basic tenet of capitalism is intertwined with darwinism since it teaches a soul to essentially barbarism and survival of the fittest by any means necessary."

Does it?

It seems to me that not only do you misunderstand what the theory of evolution is about, you also misunderstand how capitalsim works as well. I fail to see how the two are 'intertwined' and you've merely asserted that the two are linked and provided nothing by way of reasoning to support that.

By the way... you are aware that as a multi-celled organism you are effectively a consensus of cooperation?

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jan 2013 09:27:17 GMT
Bellatori says:
You write a lot of words but words without content meaning are pointless. You rail against Darwinism and Evolution (which Spin correctly points out should be "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection" but we will continue with the shorthand) but other than insult you offer no argument or alternative.

"darwinists, in essence, dig their own grave" Not if they are dead they don't...
" darwinism is really just calvinism shrouded in occult terminology" This is not obscure, or subtle or meaningful... it is simply ludicrous. Words thrown together in the hope that they sound profound.

If you have a point then, fine. But your recent posts are nothing but rant.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jan 2013 09:28:03 GMT
There have always been people who can be duped by something, but I agree with you about celebrities, not least because one has some concern about the celebs themselves. They might well be people who just wanted to play football and were good at it, and don't always like the fanfare that goes with it. Also, in the past when this hysteria was less pronounced, if a celeb. did fall off the pedestal there was at least some chance they would receive justice and be punished commensurate with what they had done, not excessively punished. But if justice didn't put them where they are, it's unlikely it will rescue them if they are in trouble.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jan 2013 09:30:23 GMT
AJ Murray says:
-"(John Calvin, of course, being the leading spearhead of capitalism, as we know it today)."

Hahahahahaha..

-"...yes. darwinism is really just calvinism shrouded in occult terminology and pedaled as a new theory. but it really is nothing but naked unbelief; and is the drive to capitalist injustice. as i said these people dig their own grave, hence their shame at being unable to explain themselves."

I think you just took a wrong turn into crazytown there gtL. Come to your senses man and turn back! If you stay too long they make you watch Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort videos.

Oh! The huge manatee!

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jan 2013 09:33:27 GMT
Bellatori says:
It has been going on for years. Human waste at sewage plants is composted sterilised and bagged and sold back as garden manure. The only problem my father found with it was that people eat a lot of tomatoes and the pips seem to survive to germinate.

So your attempt at a sneer at 'people' basically backfires. It was one of the first useful recycling practices from 50 years ago.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jan 2013 09:36:32 GMT
Last edited by the author on 28 Jan 2013 09:37:17 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jan 2013 09:36:48 GMT
Ian says:
"Are you trying to derail my thread with nonsense?"

I think your first post did that.

Posted on 28 Jan 2013 09:42:31 GMT
so let's talk about the present-day living out, and "harvesting" of freely-distributed darwinist world-view ideology. What does the human life guided by this ideological framework look like?

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jan 2013 09:49:37 GMT
Ian says:
Why restrict ourselves to the human life guided by one specific scientific theory?
What does the human life guided by the following look like:

- Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
- The Sainger-Nicholson model of the cell membrane
- Rutherford's model of the atom?

Why do you imagine that a scientific theory which explains the nature of the universe (or some small part of it) has anything to say about humans should live their lives? It's a scientific theory not a philosophy.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jan 2013 09:50:53 GMT
Last edited by the author on 28 Jan 2013 09:51:31 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 28 Jan 2013 09:51:10 GMT
Last edited by the author on 28 Jan 2013 09:51:42 GMT
An example of celebrities would be when Lester Piggott got into trouble years ago over his tax affairs. I really don't remember any fanfare about him having let the punters down as such. He was the housewives' favourite because they could have a flutter at the Grand National or whatever and maybe win without having to study form and whether the going was hard or soft and so on. Effectively they were betting on Lester not the horse, but these women weren't so silly as to idolise him so weren't heartbroken when he turned out to have feet of clay.

It's not so much people who are silly now as the magazine editors in my opinion, though we buy these things. Many people still feel uncomforable about reading books, seeing them as elitist, in fact my grandmother used to call a magazine a book though it isn't what I'd call a book. Ironically one of the more intelligent of the magazines is called 'Psychologies', though a lot of psychology in the media is very false but this does take the subject fairly seriously. I'm pretty sure it's French so they don't mind intellectualism.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jan 2013 09:53:46 GMT
Ian says:
"so let's talk about the present-day living out, and "harvesting" of freely-distributed darwinist world-view ideology. What does the human life guided by this ideological framework look like? "

Whatever you want it to look like - Darwin never proposed a philosophy to live your life by; he was too busy studying biology.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jan 2013 09:56:06 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jan 2013 09:56:13 GMT
AJ Murray says:
-"when I read the TULIP it reads as a blueprint of "survival of the capitalist" AKA darwinism AKA sheer naked unbelief. AKA exclusive injustice."

In other words this is your supposition and you won't let facts sway you from your predetermined solution.

What is TULIP?

-"And as I said earlier, charity is clearly the exception in darwinism, not the rule."

Except for the fact that there are multi-celled and single-celled organisms, the latter predate the former. Under your schema multi-celled organisms should not evolve.

-"By darwinist standards, the "successful" is he who manages to hoard as much as possible in the least amount of time."

Evolutionary success is determined by producing offspring, not accumulation of wealth.

-"you'd have to be blind not to see the connection of darwinism with capitalism."

Yeah, yeah, so instead of actually demontrating a link your going to continue to assert it and anyone who disagrees must have something wrong with them? Tiresome gtL, and wrong.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jan 2013 09:58:17 GMT
PS: AJ:

everything except darwinism is considered "a wrong turn into crazytown" by darwinists. it's exclusive and is pumped into the schools and institutions wholesale. It gives no real choice to believe in anything different with regards human origin, present process of so-called "natural selection", and your ultimate destination. It guides these areas exclusively. A darwinist derides alternatives, for fear of not being one of the so-called "elect" himself. For fear of other darwinists singling him out. Like a hive mentality.

"You'll certainly not be a star footballer, or alan sugar's apprentice, or win x-factor if you carry on like that! The horror! The shame!"

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jan 2013 10:00:36 GMT
Bellatori says:
OK so what you are saying is that survival of the fittest should not apply to humans.

I have never seen a fit lion ever take down a zebra and carry a haunch to an old ejected male... on the other hand Warren Buffet and Bill & Belinda Gates have given more than the GDP of most countries in support and charity. Neither of whom are "religious looneys".

When I read tracts like yours it always makes me think of, not the disadvantaged, but the slightly unsuccessful who are jealous of the haves, don't want to work for the having and therefore claim to stand for the have nots.

As for justice? Again it is a matter of perspective. Jealousy and justice are often synonymous for those I have just described. You have it and I should have it to so justice is taking it away from you...

It is how the Nazis started on the Jews after the great depression. Good for hysterical crowd pleasing but completely morally bankrupt.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jan 2013 10:09:56 GMT
Ian says:
No, you have insulted all scientists and anyone who spends their life trying to understand the nature of some small part of the universe by pretending that what they have discovered spells out a design for living and is therefore responsible for whatever aspects of society you don't like. I find it odd that you choose this one tiny aspect of one branch of science to criticise in this way. I repeat my questions (but I'll open it up if that's easier for you), what do other scientific discoveries tell us about how we should live our lives? Pick any one you like and let us know your thoughts...

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jan 2013 10:11:32 GMT
Go look at TULIP.

And you say "evolutionary success" is determined by offspring? Well, indirectly. Also determined by being able to adapt to environment. which in a present day human context (note: present-day), (and where darwinist theory pervades), that generally means, vaguely, unbelief and capitalism.

which translates to hoarding cash by any means necessary even if it means injustice. Since the machiavellian wins.

Charity is certainly the exception, not the rule. When the going gets tough, darwinism says its time for austerity measures AKA selfishness. Recession. Contraction. Survival of "the fittest", AKA, the capitalist.

Still with me? Do you disagree with anything above?

as for multi-celled organisms. nothing in capitalist ideology contradicts that. i'm sure richard branson thinks his company is benign since it provides a [meager] "charitable service", employment, etc. but that's getting into a whole other debate. and is irrelevant except for the fact that branson has already "made it" in unbelieving society, and thus represents nothing other than the exact so-called "evolutionary pinnacle" of the present secular day. AKA capitalist man. AKA win by any means necessary. AKA bullying. AKA injustice. AKA a man's worth is measured by the kilo.

Do you disagree? what space does darwinism make to counter bullying?

That anyone would deride branson or the pope exposes that they despise darwin and are hypocrites.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  18
Total posts:  153
Initial post:  26 Jan 2013
Latest post:  30 Jan 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions