View Poll Results: Do you belive in Evolution

Voters
172. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    128 74.42%
  • No

    44 25.58%
Page 35 of 35 FirstFirst ... 25303132333435
Results 341 to 344 of 344

Thread: Do You Believe in Evolution?

  1. #341
    Mein Glaube ist die Liebe zu meinem Volk. Juthunge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    57 Minutes Ago @ 11:53 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    German
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordid-CM
    Gender
    Religion
    Religion of the Blood
    Posts
    1,514
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    194
    Thanked in
    99 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Theunissen View Post
    Actually, if you broaden that a bit, that's what both Creationists as well as (Materialist) Evolutionists claim.

    The difference is that Creationists would insist that a creator needs to be involved in that, while Evolutionists say it just happened as some sort of coincidence.
    If that were the only thing Creationists claimed, that the initial spark of life was provided by some deity, I doubt many Evolutionists would take offense. To me in any case, just as with the Big Bang, that is as or more likely to me, as a random occurrence. But as we know, the differences are deeper than that and creationists provide no evidence for it.
    "Stürzten wir wohl im Dunkel – wir starben nicht! Immer war Sehnsucht die Straße und Ziel das Licht.
    Immer war Kraft wie lebendiges Bauernkorn, Immer wehte die Fahne des Glaubens vorn.
    Tausend Jahre war Deutschland der Hölle nah – Tausend Jahre sprach Gott zu Deutschland: Ja!"

    Ancient DNA: List of All Studies analyzing DNA of Ancient Tribes and Ethnicities(post-2010)


  2. #342
    Senior Member Uwe Jens Lornsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Last Online
    5 Hours Ago @ 07:40 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Jutland
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Schleswig-Holstein Schleswig-Holstein
    Gender
    Age
    47
    Zodiac Sign
    Taurus
    Family
    Widowed
    Politics
    cons. old fashion worker class
    Religion
    Philosophical Archaic Christian
    Posts
    378
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    249
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    105
    Thanked in
    86 Posts
    I voted 'Yes' after reading a bit of the explanation at Wikipedia.

    Though the "prejudice" claims, that Northern Europeans are tall above average,
    you will have difficulties to purchase clothing for tall people in bigger cities.
    The people in bigger cities are of average size;
    it could be a theory that people living in dense population environments
    automatically grow smaller, than people in less densely populated areas as the countryside for example.
    Mk 10:18 What do you call me a good master, no-one is good .

  3. #343
    Senior Member Theunissen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    Sunday, August 26th, 2018 @ 01:00 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    North Western Europe
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    State
    Transvaal Transvaal
    Location
    South Africa
    Gender
    Posts
    362
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    56
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    99
    Thanked in
    64 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    If that were the only thing Creationists claimed, that the initial spark of life was provided by some deity, I doubt many Evolutionists would take offense. To me in any case, just as with the Big Bang, that is as or more likely to me, as a random occurrence. But as we know, the differences are deeper than that and creationists provide no evidence for it.
    Well, we were talking about how living organisms came into being - So no elaborate treatise on other things. The whole thing is more a question of plausibility and not of evidence that would be observable right now.

  4. #344
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Last Online
    1 Week Ago @ 08:14 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Gender
    Posts
    70
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    7 Posts
    I more or less follow Charles Spencer and Ernst Haeckel over Darwin.

    I accept that:
    -the laws of Nature (laws pertaining to matter, or the "law of matter" as Haeckel put it) govern over the human community. If even the planets, which were once revered as gods, are subject to the eternal revolution around the Sun, how much more should human beings be to the god which shapes existence! Haeckel and Adolf evidently derived their views of evolution from a loftier conception than Darwin's. It is these laws which are immutable, eternal, unchangeable, and divine.

    -what is unfit for life is ruthlessly, intolerantly destroyed by nature. In the lower kingdoms, Nature chooses. There is no sentimentality, humanitarianism, socialism, etc., or written constitution, which determines the community's conduct. Among animals, the weak, the sick, the mediocre, the drones, etc. are forcibly expelled from the community. The animal knows, better than humans, that allowing the weak links to fester would bring down the whole community. On a side note, it's always an amusement to see people speak of the persecution of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, mentally ill, etc. but never once concern themselves with their problems. They are incapable of empathizing with the people they claim to be speaking for. They certainly don't know what it's like to be confined in an asylum or to be addicted to medications. They just tolerate such peoples in their midst and raise moral objections towards anyone who intimates anything negative about these groups. It's not the individual Nature concerns herself with, but with the whole species. In the human kingdom, how much money do people spend on improving the living conditions of prisoners (very few repeat offenders will change their ways, the born criminal is a born criminal, most will accept Christianity simply as an escape from pending death), or the care and treatment of the mentally ill, over the active, healthy, and working elements of a community? Some people might as well be human vegetables, incapable of producing a thought or making a motion, but as long as they're heart is beating or their brain intact, they're considered alive and more important to the community. Needless to say, Christianity has elevated the biological altruism into a perverse form, where one's own people are neglected and foreigners are attended to, as the great Martin Luther himself pointed out (no different from Adolf in his propagandist book).

    I often regret and deplore that we Christians have begun to be wise abroad and fools at home. A hundred times worse blasphemies than this exist in the very streets of Jerusalem, and the high places are filled with spiritual idols. We ought to show our excessive zeal in removing these offences which are our real, intestine enemies. Instead of which we abandon all that is really urgent and turn to foreign and external affairs, under the inspiration of the devil who intends that we should neglect our own business without helping that of others.
    I reject that:
    -man shares a common ancestor with apes (based on a whim from Darwin, which even he admits is pointless to speculate on), which leads to the notion that there is only one species of mankind, that all races descend from one single pair (which even Gobineau subscribed to). Today this is expressed in the scientific community as the Out of Africa theory. I hardly need to point out how this isn't that much different from the notion that all races come from an Adam and Eve (according to Schoppe, rejecting this monogenism was one of the reasons why Giordono Bruno was considered a heretic). In antiquity, there was no one better positioned than Julian "the Apostate" for rebutting this rubbish. His essay against the Christians always comes back to the idea that polygenism and polytheism are inseparable concepts and he constantly points out the differences in appearances, conduct, character, laws, and constitutions among races.
    Also, I would wager that man preceded the animals (in contrast to the commonly accepted biblical narrative that animals were made before man, Genesis 2 will confirm my point) and follows a separate development in consciousness. The idea that plants, animals, and humans partake in the same one consciousness (pantheism) is more ludicrous than what is espoused in Christianity (man is the centre of the world, plants and animals either not taken into consideration or treated as objects). Where do we get the right to believe that man hasn't always been what he was? On the basis of sensationalist "discoveries" which is immediately made to conform to the ruling scientific dogmas? Primordial man was certainly not a primitive caveman in appearance or form. The discovery of fire was not by chance or from a divine benefactor. Man figured it out for himself.

    -struggle is necessary to development. Certainly it confers an impetus and gives birth to new changes, but it's also feasible for humans to develop without conflict. Had Adam Weishaupt succeeded with his design, the world as we know it would have imperceptibly changed for the better. The greatest changes are always imperceptible.

Page 35 of 35 FirstFirst ... 25303132333435

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution by Cultural Changes
    By Halldorr in forum General Anthropology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Monday, December 26th, 2011, 08:02 PM
  2. What is the value of evolution?
    By SouthernBoy in forum General Anthropology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Tuesday, February 22nd, 2005, 01:57 PM
  3. Human Evolution: Evolution and the Structure of Health and Disease
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Paleoanthropology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Saturday, November 6th, 2004, 07:39 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •