It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by 666Azrael666
1-why do all these catholics follow the pope in the first place? Why did they ever begin to put faith in this man to be God's official spokesman? What biblical precident set it up? I am not asking why people listen to him today specifically, why did the pope ever get the power he had.
2-Again, that is my point. It is not in the bible so creationism is a little farther out the window isn't it.
At this point, I am not at all sure what your point is.
Darwin's other mistakes are more trivial. For instance, in one edition of Origin of Species, Darwin enthused about "Eozoon canadense", which had been identified as a primordial microorganism by others but whose "fossils" turned out to be nothing more than mineral formations.
Darwin also thought the dog was a hybrid of several wild ancestors whereas chickens had only one ancestor. Actually, it turns out the the opposite is true. He also suggested the lung evolved from the swimbladder of fish, whereas nowadays it appears the reverse is true.
Some biologists are now calling for a revision of the modern synthesis to take into account of how new findings have changed our view of, for instance, the nature of genes, the origin of sex, epigenetic inheritance, levels of selection and speciation. Such a revision, however, would merely formally recognise what biologists have already learned in recent decades.
So what have they learned? In a sentence, that while the concept of evolution by natural selection proposed by Darwin was simple, over the Earth's 4-billion-year history it has led to incredibly complex and often unexpected consequences
Eugenics is a moral commitment not a racial affiliation and any "race" that adopted a eugenic program could, given sufficient time, evolve into and become the next more highly evolved species above Homo-Sapiens. It is our hope that all "races" will accept that moral responsibility and accomplish that objective, but it can not be accomplished within the political, philosophical and religious milieu of the 20th century.
Originally posted by Clearskies
Even many evolutionists are glad that Darwinism isn't taught as Darwin himself believed..
Originally posted by Good Wolf
I don't think clearskies meant that as an argument from a creationist perspective, but you make good points.
Just more 'falling away' from the tenents of Godliness and Faith while following the roman church's lead.
Originally posted by noobfun
Eugenics comes from selective breeding it is not a natural process like evolution and was known about for thousands of years before Darwin was even born
it requires a guiding hand to pick and choose who breeds to promote a certain characteristic
Eugenics is why we have the many species of dogs chickens cows etc we created through our meddaling in thier breeding cycles not by nature
and that quote showing how racist he is says " any race given time could breed them selves to be a super race, and that we hope all races should make themselves the best they can be, but politics religeon etc prevent this"
he is saying ALL people of the earth should use eugenics to become the ultimate that homo-sapien can be, he gives no specific race no specifics about what are the traits that we should keep or destroy, hardly sentiments of the racist mind. all people of the world should try and be better then they already are
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."
"A most important obstacle in civilized countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton, namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their children in comfort. . .Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shown by Dr. Duncan they produce many more children. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: 'The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits..."
bible (old testament): everyone not a jew must burn in hell
(new testament): everyone not a christian including jews must burn in hell
now if you want real sexism and rascism on a grand scale lets go read the bible
Originally posted by HooHaa
The sun rises when it is told to. So predictable that we set our time and calander by it. That screams to me design!
Galton defined his new word this way: "Eugenics is the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations, whether physically or mentally."
Originally posted by Good Wolf
I can't decide if you're using it as ammo against evolution cos it really doesn't apply
. Maybe you're trying to say that Darwin wasn't a good guy. Still doesn't relate,
another example of your not the right sort of christians so your evil
Everyone who loves G-d will NOT burn in hell.
But, so many love the darkness, instead.
Originally posted by CaptainG0705
The Church of England will concede in a statement that it was over-defensive and over-emotional in dismissing Darwin's ideas. It will call "anti-evolutionary fervour" an "indictment" on the Church".
The bold move is certain to dismay sections of the Church that believe in creationism and regard Darwin's views as directly opposed to traditional Christian teaching.
The apology, which has been written by the Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, the Church's director of mission and public affairs, says that Christians, in their response to Darwin's theory of natural selection, repeated the mistakes they made in doubting Galileo's astronomy in the 17th century.
"The statement will read: Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practise the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends."
Opposition to evolutionary theories is still "a litmus test of faithfulness" for some Christian movements, the Church will admit. It will say that such attitudes owe much to a fear of perceived threats to Christianity.
The comments are included on a Church of England website promoting the views of Charles Darwin to be launched on Monday.
Originally posted by The time lord
I think a lot of these modern priests are failing to read the scriptures properly and study them. It seems once they become a bit foregetful of what the Bible actually says and they try and use modern science to gain new followers into thinking the Church has found some new Biblical meaning through wisdom when its just their false opinions.
As 2Peter states many false teaching happenned then and do still now, is that not Wisdom standing the test of time?