NO BLUE HEAVEN FOR ELANJO

[johnny crossan]

Let me copy paste (well quote from the selfish gene) in response.

What is man? ...... all attempts to answer that question before 1859 are worthless and we will be better off if we ignore them completely.

Darwin proved there is no god. The problem is there is so much emotional investment in religion compared to education that that a huge swathe of humanity can't bring themselves to admit they got it wrong and wake up to the reality of our world.

At the risk of sounding combative, Charles Darwin was a Christian.

 

[ElanJo]

Why don't you speak for yourself instead of quoting a rather dubious review, which tries to combat the scientific approach with theology(which is not a science at all), of a book?

It looks as tho you have no thoughts of your own at all when all you do is quote other people.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

Let me copy paste (well quote from the selfish gene) in response.

What is man? ...... all attempts to answer that question before 1859 are worthless and we will be better off if we ignore them completely.

Darwin proved there is no god. The problem is there is so much emotional investment in religion compared to education that that a huge swathe of humanity can't bring themselves to admit they got it wrong and wake up to the reality of our world.

At the risk of sounding combative, Charles Darwin was a Christian.

Until he discovered natural selection. I think you need to read up a bit on the man and his turmoil. He stopped attending church after publication of the origin of species.

 

[pee dubya]

Let me copy paste (well quote from the selfish gene) in response.

What is man? ...... all attempts to answer that question before 1859 are worthless and we will be better off if we ignore them completely.

Darwin proved there is no god. The problem is there is so much emotional investment in religion compared to education that that a huge swathe of humanity can't bring themselves to admit they got it wrong and wake up to the reality of our world.

At the risk of sounding combative, Charles Darwin was a Christian.

He started off a Christian, by the time he wrote On the Origin of Species he was more Agnostic.

 

[ElanJo]

Let me copy paste (well quote from the selfish gene) in response.

What is man? ...... all attempts to answer that question before 1859 are worthless and we will be better off if we ignore them completely.

Darwin proved there is no god. The problem is there is so much emotional investment in religion compared to education that that a huge swathe of humanity can't bring themselves to admit they got it wrong and wake up to the reality of our world.

At the risk of sounding combative, Charles Darwin was a Christian.

He was born an Anglican (if ever such a thing is true)

After his youth he gave up religion, spoke out against Christianity, and before you say otherwise, he did no recant evolution or become a Christian on his deathbed.

 

[johnny crossan]

Why don't you speak for yourself instead of quoting a rather dubious review, which tries to combat the scientific approach with theology(which is not a science at all), of a book?

It looks as tho you have no thoughts of your own at all when all you do is quote other people.

Having invested so much of your time in studying and propounding the views of Richard Dawkins I am surprised that you are prepared to write off Plantinga's response as 'theology'. Plantinga's critique of naturalism is generally regarded by the academic community as well founded. It seems clear enough, I'm not sure where you get your 'dubious' from. In fact I couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[ElanJo]

Why don't you speak for yourself instead of quoting a rather dubious review, which tries to combat the scientific approach with theology(which is not a science at all), of a book?

It looks as tho you have no thoughts of your own at all when all you do is quote other people.

Having invested so much of your time in studying and propounding the views of Richard Dawkins I am surprised that you are prepared to write off Plantinga's response as 'theology'. Plantinga's critique of naturalism is generally regarded by the academic community as well founded. It seems clear enough, I'm not sure where you get your 'dubious' from. In fact I couldn't have put it better myself.

I didn't say his review was theology, just that it has in it arguments from theology as tho it is a legitimate argument to bring up.

Anyway, all this bullshit is pointless. I'm an Agnostic Atheist, and until there is atleast a spot of evidence that there is a creator I will remain so.

I will say, however, that I would like nothing better than to see Christianity, Islam etc etc disappear off the face of this planet forever.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Anyone from The University of Notre Dame is going to be very objective. NOT.

<a class="postlink" href="http://nd.edu/aboutnd/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://nd.edu/aboutnd/</a>

 

[bondsman]

The problem with evolution is that it only explains the origin of things with genes, the apparent order of the universe as a whole and its purposive nature cannot be explained by Darwinism. Consider the movement of the earth, the ozone layer etc the apparent order here cannot be explained by evolution. For a theist it is perfectly rational to accept evolution as part of a divine creative process.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

its purposive nature

is a figment of your imagination.