Evolusjon vs. kreasjonisme (debatt for og imot evolusjonsteorien).

[marius77]

From Darwin to Hitler:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Darwin_to_Hitler

 

Marx sa: "Religion er opium for folket". Om forfølgelse av kristne i Sovjetunionen:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

 

Bibelen forbyr også kristne å begå vold, untatt i selvforsvar. Den som lever ved sverdet vil dø ved sverdet, elsk din fiende osv, så å være fundamentalistisk kristen betyr jo i tilfelle å være så fordypt i bibellesning og Jesus at man bærer sin fiende rundt på gullstol. Jesus ba til og med om nåde for de som korsfestet ham, og det er jo dette det kristne budskapet går ut på når man sier "elsk din fiende", for Jesu sin forsoningspakt gjaldt jo alle, også Jesus sine fiender, og en av de som forfulgte og drepte kristne ble jo en av kristendommens og bibelens største navn, Paulus. Jesus ropte om de som korsfestet ham: "Kjære Gud tilgi dem, for de vet ikke hva de gjør." Der skal jeg inrømme jeg ikke er enda.

Endret 25. juni 2017 av marius77

[Imlekk]

From Darwin to Hitler:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Darwin_to_Hitler

(...)

Leser du dine egne kilder? I så fall, her er den delen av Wikipediaartikkelen som tar for seg negative akademiske reaksjoner på den boka du henviser til:

 

Negative evaluations by academic reviewers are critical of the book citing Weikart's selective use of primary sources and ignoring a range of developments that shaped Nazi ideology.[4] In 2004, Sander Gliboff, professor of History and Philosophy of Science at Indiana University, criticized the work writing that "It is dismaying to see such opinions being passed off as results of scholarly research."[16] In 2005, Andrew Zimmerman, a professor of German history, reviewed it in the American Historical Review, writing "Weikart presents an image of Darwinism at once both too narrow and too broad."[17] Zimmerman wrote:

 

The German Darwinians who are the focus of the book appear only as advocates of eugenics, racism, and imperialism, although presumably these policies were informed by a broader intellectual project. At the same time, German anthropologists, who opposed Darwinism before the turn of the century (as a doctrine possessing no more empirical foundation than revealed religion does), are lumped with Darwinists, since these anthropologists also supported imperialism and racist hierarchies.[17]

 

Weikart replied to Zimmerman's criticism with a letter to the editor[18] to which Zimmerman offered a rebuttal saying Weikart's work "is anachronistic, projecting present‐day theocratic agendas onto the history of science in Imperial Germany."[19]

 

Nils Roll-Hansen, historian and philosopher of 19th and 20th century biology at University of Oslo, also reviewed the work in 2005 and was critical of it in a review published by Isis calling it "selective" and containing "insufficient attention to historical change—leaving out political, social, and economic factors as well as the role of new knowledge in genetics-make his overall argument unconvincing."[20] Jonathan Judaken, professor of History at University of Memphis, wrote that while it is a "significant study," he "fails to follow the rich nuances of the discourse/practices and institutions that have preoccupied the contemporary generation of intellectual historians, who have paid attention to the continuities and ruptures within systems of thought. So his presentation of racism, for example, reiterates a rationale that does not stand up to the critical scrutiny of intellectual history."[21] Larry Arnhart, a professor of Political Science at Northern Illinois University wrote "Weikart doesn't actually show any direct connection between Darwin and Hitler. In fact, Weikart has responded to my criticisms by admitting that the title of his book is misleading, since he cannot show any direct link between Darwin's ideas and Hitler's Nazism."[22][23][24]

 

Also in 2005, science historian Paul Lawrence Farber wrote in the Journal of the History of Biology that "Like other attempts to tar Darwin with all of the problems of modernity, Weikart's suffers from conceptual flaws that detract from his book, which contains some interesting material on the German eugenics movement, popular Darwinism in Germany, and German evolutionary ethics."[25] He concluded "Weikart's book, unfortunately, is likely to spawn more urban myths about Darwin that will have to be addressed."[25]

 

In 2006, Robert J. Richards, historian of Darwin and eugenics at University of Chicago, wrote "It can only be a tendentious and dogmatically driven assessment that would condemn Darwin for the crimes of the Nazis."[26] Richards more pointedly concluded "Hitler was not a Darwinian" and "calls this all a desperate tactic to undermine evolution."[27] Richards explained, "There's not the slightest shred of evidence that Hitler read Darwin," and "Some of the biggest influences on Hitler's anti-Semitism were opposed to evolution, such as British writer Houston Stewart Chamberlain, whose racial theory became incorporated into Nazi doctrine."[27]

 

Similarly, historian Marius Turda's review asks why Weikart's book did not focus on "some authors who actually are credited with influencing Hitler, such as Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels, the Viennese Aryan racist who formulated the doctrine of Ariosophy, or Guido von List, another Viennese occult racist, or Josef Reimer, author of A Pan-German Germany (1905) (whom Weikart discusses cursorily)."[28]

 

Also in a review that same year Helmut Walser Smith of Vanderbilt University writes that the book's "larger argument remains too narrowly conceived," as elements of Nazism, including "nationalism and anti-Sermitism make cameo appearances, for example, but their power is hardly gauged."[29] He concludes saying it is "a thesis on a tight rope," which is "convincing as long as one does not look down."[29]

 

In 2006, Ann Taylor Allen, a professor of German history at the University of Louisville, reviewed Weikart's book for The Journal of Modern History.[30] She explained that Weikart's talk about "Darwinism" is not based on any careful reading of Darwin himself but on vague ideas by a variety of people who presented themselves as "Darwinian."[30] Moreover, fundamental elements of Nazism like anti-Semitism cannot be attributed to Darwinism since they predate evolutionary theory. Allen concluded:

 

This picture of the Holocaust as the outcome of a 'culture war' between religion and science leads to serious distortions on both sides. The 'Judeo-Christian' worldview is unproblematically associated here with many beliefs — such as opposition to birth control, legalized abortion, and assisted suicide — that many believing Christians and Jews would reject. And 'Darwinism' is equated with a hodgepodge of ideas about race, politics, and social issues. If all these ideas were to fall into well-deserved obsolescence, this would in no way detract from the validity of Darwin's contributions to modern biological science. Neither religion nor science is well served by this oversimplified view of their complex history.[30]

 

In 2007, Hector Avalos, a professor of Religious Studies and founder of Iowa State University's Atheist and Agnostic Society,[31] wrote an essay for the anti-Creationism site Talk.reason with the purpose of "exposing the historical flaws found in the work of Weikart" and argued "that the defense of genocide, infanticide and "eugenics" by creationists actually has a very venerable and lengthy tradition that precedes Darwin."[32] In a May 2008 debate with Weikart, Avalos criticized Weikart's quoting of Darwin.[33] Weikart states in his book:

 

Darwin clearly believed that the struggle for existence among humans would result in racial extermination. In Descent of Man he asserted, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races."[34]

 

[35][36][37][38][39]

 

Avalos said that the quote is often "misrepresented" in creationist literature, and that Darwin was reporting and criticizing the extermination of people at a time of colonial expansion, rather than promoting it.[33] Darwin's passage, in full context, reads:

 

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised 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 civilised 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.[40]

 

In 2009, historian Peter J. Bowler of Queen's University wrote in Notes and Records of the Royal Society that Weikart's book reflects a "simple blame game in which (for example) Darwin and Haeckel are accused of paving the way for Nazism," and criticized him and others for associating Darwin "with distasteful social policies" using a "remarkably simple-minded approach".[11]

 

Weikart has posted responses to four reviews on his webpage.[41]

 

Besides criticisms from historians, Weikart was criticized by Jeff Schloss, professor at Westmont College and former Discovery Institute fellow, in the Christian American Scientific Affiliation's publication regarding the Expelled film. Schloss wrote that the "ideas that are attributed to Darwin (such as natural selection makes might right in social policy) were actually not advocated but repudiated by Darwin and his immediate colleagues."[42] Weikart wrote a response.[43]

Mens her er den delen som tar for seg en positiv akademisk respons:

 

The reception has not been universally negative. Ian Dowbiggin, a Catholic opponent of euthanasia who teaches at the University of Prince Edward Island, found some value in it and has used this work as a source.[44]

Skikkelig god kildehenvisning der, mister.

[marius77]

 

From Darwin to Hitler:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Darwin_to_Hitler

(...)

Leser du dine egne kilder? I så fall, her er den delen av Wikipediaartikkelen som tar for seg negative akademiske reaksjoner på den boka du henviser til:

 

Negative evaluations by academic reviewers are critical of the book citing Weikart's selective use of primary sources and ignoring a range of developments that shaped Nazi ideology.[4] In 2004, Sander Gliboff, professor of History and Philosophy of Science at Indiana University, criticized the work writing that "It is dismaying to see such opinions being passed off as results of scholarly research."[16] In 2005, Andrew Zimmerman, a professor of German history, reviewed it in the American Historical Review, writing "Weikart presents an image of Darwinism at once both too narrow and too broad."[17] Zimmerman wrote:

 

The German Darwinians who are the focus of the book appear only as advocates of eugenics, racism, and imperialism, although presumably these policies were informed by a broader intellectual project. At the same time, German anthropologists, who opposed Darwinism before the turn of the century (as a doctrine possessing no more empirical foundation than revealed religion does), are lumped with Darwinists, since these anthropologists also supported imperialism and racist hierarchies.[17]

 

Weikart replied to Zimmerman's criticism with a letter to the editor[18] to which Zimmerman offered a rebuttal saying Weikart's work "is anachronistic, projecting present‐day theocratic agendas onto the history of science in Imperial Germany."[19]

 

Nils Roll-Hansen, historian and philosopher of 19th and 20th century biology at University of Oslo, also reviewed the work in 2005 and was critical of it in a review published by Isis calling it "selective" and containing "insufficient attention to historical change—leaving out political, social, and economic factors as well as the role of new knowledge in genetics-make his overall argument unconvincing."[20] Jonathan Judaken, professor of History at University of Memphis, wrote that while it is a "significant study," he "fails to follow the rich nuances of the discourse/practices and institutions that have preoccupied the contemporary generation of intellectual historians, who have paid attention to the continuities and ruptures within systems of thought. So his presentation of racism, for example, reiterates a rationale that does not stand up to the critical scrutiny of intellectual history."[21] Larry Arnhart, a professor of Political Science at Northern Illinois University wrote "Weikart doesn't actually show any direct connection between Darwin and Hitler. In fact, Weikart has responded to my criticisms by admitting that the title of his book is misleading, since he cannot show any direct link between Darwin's ideas and Hitler's Nazism."[22][23][24]

 

Also in 2005, science historian Paul Lawrence Farber wrote in the Journal of the History of Biology that "Like other attempts to tar Darwin with all of the problems of modernity, Weikart's suffers from conceptual flaws that detract from his book, which contains some interesting material on the German eugenics movement, popular Darwinism in Germany, and German evolutionary ethics."[25] He concluded "Weikart's book, unfortunately, is likely to spawn more urban myths about Darwin that will have to be addressed."[25]

 

In 2006, Robert J. Richards, historian of Darwin and eugenics at University of Chicago, wrote "It can only be a tendentious and dogmatically driven assessment that would condemn Darwin for the crimes of the Nazis."[26] Richards more pointedly concluded "Hitler was not a Darwinian" and "calls this all a desperate tactic to undermine evolution."[27] Richards explained, "There's not the slightest shred of evidence that Hitler read Darwin," and "Some of the biggest influences on Hitler's anti-Semitism were opposed to evolution, such as British writer Houston Stewart Chamberlain, whose racial theory became incorporated into Nazi doctrine."[27]

 

Similarly, historian Marius Turda's review asks why Weikart's book did not focus on "some authors who actually are credited with influencing Hitler, such as Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels, the Viennese Aryan racist who formulated the doctrine of Ariosophy, or Guido von List, another Viennese occult racist, or Josef Reimer, author of A Pan-German Germany (1905) (whom Weikart discusses cursorily)."[28]

 

Also in a review that same year Helmut Walser Smith of Vanderbilt University writes that the book's "larger argument remains too narrowly conceived," as elements of Nazism, including "nationalism and anti-Sermitism make cameo appearances, for example, but their power is hardly gauged."[29] He concludes saying it is "a thesis on a tight rope," which is "convincing as long as one does not look down."[29]

 

In 2006, Ann Taylor Allen, a professor of German history at the University of Louisville, reviewed Weikart's book for The Journal of Modern History.[30] She explained that Weikart's talk about "Darwinism" is not based on any careful reading of Darwin himself but on vague ideas by a variety of people who presented themselves as "Darwinian."[30] Moreover, fundamental elements of Nazism like anti-Semitism cannot be attributed to Darwinism since they predate evolutionary theory. Allen concluded:

 

This picture of the Holocaust as the outcome of a 'culture war' between religion and science leads to serious distortions on both sides. The 'Judeo-Christian' worldview is unproblematically associated here with many beliefs — such as opposition to birth control, legalized abortion, and assisted suicide — that many believing Christians and Jews would reject. And 'Darwinism' is equated with a hodgepodge of ideas about race, politics, and social issues. If all these ideas were to fall into well-deserved obsolescence, this would in no way detract from the validity of Darwin's contributions to modern biological science. Neither religion nor science is well served by this oversimplified view of their complex history.[30]

 

In 2007, Hector Avalos, a professor of Religious Studies and founder of Iowa State University's Atheist and Agnostic Society,[31] wrote an essay for the anti-Creationism site Talk.reason with the purpose of "exposing the historical flaws found in the work of Weikart" and argued "that the defense of genocide, infanticide and "eugenics" by creationists actually has a very venerable and lengthy tradition that precedes Darwin."[32] In a May 2008 debate with Weikart, Avalos criticized Weikart's quoting of Darwin.[33] Weikart states in his book:

 

Darwin clearly believed that the struggle for existence among humans would result in racial extermination. In Descent of Man he asserted, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races."[34]

 

[35][36][37][38][39]

 

Avalos said that the quote is often "misrepresented" in creationist literature, and that Darwin was reporting and criticizing the extermination of people at a time of colonial expansion, rather than promoting it.[33] Darwin's passage, in full context, reads:

 

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised 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 civilised 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.[40]

 

In 2009, historian Peter J. Bowler of Queen's University wrote in Notes and Records of the Royal Society that Weikart's book reflects a "simple blame game in which (for example) Darwin and Haeckel are accused of paving the way for Nazism," and criticized him and others for associating Darwin "with distasteful social policies" using a "remarkably simple-minded approach".[11]

 

Weikart has posted responses to four reviews on his webpage.[41]

 

Besides criticisms from historians, Weikart was criticized by Jeff Schloss, professor at Westmont College and former Discovery Institute fellow, in the Christian American Scientific Affiliation's publication regarding the Expelled film. Schloss wrote that the "ideas that are attributed to Darwin (such as natural selection makes might right in social policy) were actually not advocated but repudiated by Darwin and his immediate colleagues."[42] Weikart wrote a response.[43]

Mens her er den delen som tar for seg en positiv akademisk respons:

 

The reception has not been universally negative. Ian Dowbiggin, a Catholic opponent of euthanasia who teaches at the University of Prince Edward Island, found some value in it and has used this work as a source.[44]

Skikkelig god kildehenvisning der, mister.

 

 

Ser ikke problemet, det er negativ kritikk mot absolutt ALLE bøker. Benekter du at tanken til nazistene var å sette "evolusjonen" i høygear basert på Darwinistisk evolusjonsteori, uavhengig av om de hadde rett i raseteoriene sine eller ei? 

[Larzen_91]

Skal vi da også bedømme kristne som ikke tolker kristen teologi "korrekt" (i følge deg selv)? Greit.

[marius77]

Skal vi da også bedømme kristne som ikke tolker kristen teologi "korrekt" (i følge deg selv)? Greit.

 

Nå var vel dette her en riktig tolkning av Darwinisme i sin ytterste konsekvens, derav utrykket "sosialdarwinisme", selv om de blandet dette med raseteorier og ideer Darwin ikke støttet. Det går da og fram at han ikke skylder på Darwin.

[Larzen_91]

Jeg betviler at du kan bedømme evolusjonsteoriens "ytterste konsekvens", da din kunnskap på området har vist seg historisk å være mangelfull.

[marius77]

Jeg betviler at du kan bedømme evolusjonsteoriens "ytterste konsekvens", da din kunnskap på området har vist seg historisk å være mangelfull.

 

Jaha, hvor da? Hva vet du som ikke jeg vet?

[Imlekk]

Ser ikke problemet, det er negativ kritikk mot absolutt ALLE bøker. Benekter du at tanken til nazistene var å sette "evolusjonen" i høygear basert på Darwinistisk evolusjonsteori, uavhengig av om de hadde rett i raseteoriene sine eller ei?

Okay, så fordi noen har skrevet en bok, selv om den bokstavelig talt slaktes, så er det et gyldig argument? Phu-leaze.

 

Hvorvidt nazistene mente det eller ei er ikke noe jeg kjenner godt til. Det jeg derimot kjenner godt til er koblingen mellom kristendommen og antisemitisme. (Kos deg med det.)

[Larzen_91]

 

Jeg betviler at du kan bedømme evolusjonsteoriens "ytterste konsekvens", da din kunnskap på området har vist seg historisk å være mangelfull.

 

Jaha, hvor da? Hva vet du som ikke jeg vet?

 

 

Det er mat for en annen tråd som allerede eksisterer.

[marius77]

 

Ser ikke problemet, det er negativ kritikk mot absolutt ALLE bøker. Benekter du at tanken til nazistene var å sette "evolusjonen" i høygear basert på Darwinistisk evolusjonsteori, uavhengig av om de hadde rett i raseteoriene sine eller ei?

Okay, så fordi noen har skrevet en bok, selv om den bokstavelig talt slaktes, så er det et gyldig argument? Phu-leaze.

 

Hvorvidt nazistene mente det eller ei er ikke noe jeg kjenner godt til. Det jeg derimot kjenner godt til er koblingen mellom kristendommen og antisemitisme. (Kos deg med det.)

 

 

At den "bokstavelig talt slaktes" er jo en løgn, da. Det er skrevet mye om dette her, jeg postet en wiki artikkel til en kontroversiell bok om temaet, at hele akademia som baserer sin livsløgn på darwins evolusjonsteori går av skaftet over en sånn bok overrasker meg ikke i det heletatt. 

[G]

 

Jeg betviler at du kan bedømme evolusjonsteoriens "ytterste konsekvens", da din kunnskap på området har vist seg historisk å være mangelfull.

 

Jaha, hvor da? Hva vet du som ikke jeg vet?

 

 

Han sa "din kunnskap". Tror det gikk deg hus forbi..

 

Om jeg skal tippe om evolusonsteoriens ytterste konsekvens: At en går tom for andre arter og ting som matfat/matauke. At det blir flere og flere planteetere? Dersom mennesket ikke ødelegger seg selv, så ødelegger det den verdenen man lever i til det ugjenkjennelige og tillintetgjør seg selv? At en fortsetter å flytte fra planet til planet som en ressurstømmende skapning, og nettopp den alien-skapningen som man selv frykter skal innta Tellus. At en utvikler seg til å bli helt avhengige av maskiner, ihvertfall for menneskearten. Nei, det er et vanskelig spørsmål egentlig.

Endret 25. juni 2017 av G

[marius77]

 

 

Jeg betviler at du kan bedømme evolusjonsteoriens "ytterste konsekvens", da din kunnskap på området har vist seg historisk å være mangelfull.

 

Jaha, hvor da? Hva vet du som ikke jeg vet?

 

 

Det er mat for en annen tråd som allerede eksisterer.

 

 

Post den. Gadd jeg ikke svare, er det antageligvis fordi det er ting jeg har hørt før og er totalt irrelevant. Du trenger ikke være nobellprisvinner i biologi for å være kristen, å være kristen forplikter deg heller ikke å sitte og diskutere tullprat.

[G]

Hvordan kan du på forhånd bedømme noe til å være irrelevant, dersom du ikke vet hva det gikk i?

[marius77]

 

 

Jeg betviler at du kan bedømme evolusjonsteoriens "ytterste konsekvens", da din kunnskap på området har vist seg historisk å være mangelfull.

 

Jaha, hvor da? Hva vet du som ikke jeg vet?

 

 

Han sa "din kunnskap". Tror det gikk deg hus forbi..

 

Om jeg skal tippe om evolusonsteoriens ytterste konsekvens: At en går tom for andre arter og ting som matfat/matauke. At det blir flere og flere planteetere? Dersom mennesket ikke ødelegger seg selv, så ødelegger det den verdenen man lever i til det ugjenkjennelige og tillintetgjør seg selv? At en fortsetter å flytte fra planet til planet som en ressurstømmende skapning, og nettopp den alien-skapningen som man selv frykter skal innta Tellus. At en utvikler seg til å bli helt avhengige av maskiner, ihvertfall for menneskearten. Nei, det er et vanskelig spørsmål egentlig.

 

 

Eller å redusere mennesket til en dyreart hvor noen besetninger/raser skal slaktes ned mens andre settes i avl med begrunnelse i at en rase er sterkere enn en annen, som er sosialdarwinisme. Der det skiller seg fra darwin er jo at mennesket settes i en situasjon som minner om den kveg lever under i moderne landbruk, det er ikke sånn ting foregår "i naturen".

[marius77]

Hvordan kan du på forhånd bedømme noe til å være irrelevant, dersom du ikke vet hva det gikk i?

 

fordi jeg stort sett husker hvorfor jeg ikke har svart på ting her inne

[G]

Det jeg derimot kjenner godt til er koblingen mellom kristendommen og antisemitisme. (Kos deg med det.)

 

 

Det der preger også kristne mot andre kristne trosretninger. Har selv hørt en kirkeleder angripe et par andre kristne trosretninger (Frelsesarméen var en av disse som ble angrepet).

 

Også finnes det jo motsatte krefter i sving også da, men han kirkelederen var ikke protestant og heller ikke noen katolikk så..:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ecumenical_movement

Endret 25. juni 2017 av G

[Larzen_91]

(1) Post den.

 

(2) Gadd jeg ikke svare, er det antageligvis fordi det er ting jeg har hørt før og er totalt irrelevant.

 

(3) Du trenger ikke være nobellprisvinner i biologi for å være kristen,

 

(4 )å være kristen forplikter deg heller ikke å sitte og diskutere tullprat.

 

1: Evolusjonstråden. Du finner den lett.

 

2: Ditto.

 

3: Nei, men det er du som uttrykker fundamentale feil med hele grunnlaget for biologifaget. Det bør da forventes at du klargjør disse innvendingene.

 

4: Nei, det gjør det ikke. Men tullpraten slår begge veier.

[marius77]

 

(1) Post den.

 

(2) Gadd jeg ikke svare, er det antageligvis fordi det er ting jeg har hørt før og er totalt irrelevant.

 

(3) Du trenger ikke være nobellprisvinner i biologi for å være kristen,

 

(4 )å være kristen forplikter deg heller ikke å sitte og diskutere tullprat.

 

1: Evolusjonstråden. Du finner den lett.

 

2: Ditto.

 

3: Nei, men det er du som uttrykker fundamentale feil med hele grunnlaget for biologifaget. Det bør da forventes at du klargjør disse innvendingene.

 

4: Nei, det gjør det ikke. Men tullpraten slår begge veier.

 

 

3. Hvilke fundamentale feil?

 

Her er tråden:

 

https://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?showtopic=1635716&&page=230

[Larzen_91]

Du gir jo klart uttrykk for at evolusjonsteorien har fundamentale feil. Er du uenig i det? Med det i bakhodet, er det å forvente at du kan spre ditt lys til de som faktisk arbeider med dette profesjonelt (biologer). Jeg sier altså ikke at dine innvendinger nødvendigvis er feil, jeg er ikke kompetent i faget. Men du uttrykker å inneha en bedre viten enn samtlige biologer innen biologi.

[marius77]

Du gir jo klart uttrykk for at evolusjonsteorien har fundamentale feil. Er du uenig i det? Med det i bakhodet, er det å forvente at du kan spre ditt lys til de som faktisk arbeider med dette profesjonelt (biologer). Jeg sier altså ikke at dine innvendinger nødvendigvis er feil, jeg er ikke kompetent i faget. Men du uttrykker å inneha en bedre viten enn samtlige biologer innen biologi.

 

Jeg gir utrykk for at biologi og vitenskapen forøvrig ikke kan forklare det jeg har opplevd, f.eks opplevelsen av å høre stemmer si konkrete ting som ligger (flere år) fram i tid og jeg lever igjennom det enda at store deler av bibelen ble sagt til meg på forhånd før jeg leste den (aldri lest den før for ca 2 år siden), at det jeg leser i bibelen er som en "forhåndsskreven dagbok" hvor jeg iløpet av dagen har gjort ting relatert til akkuratt det jeg leser om kvelden osv.

 

Når du har sånne repeterende merkelige ting som skjer i ett - til og med med familiemedlemmer som er med og ser endel av dette - da vet du at vitenskapen egentlig ikke vet noen ting om hvordan verden virkelig fungerer.

 

Åjada, de vil selvfølgelig betvile det jeg sier og ha sine forklaringer. "Schitzofreni", "falske minner" etc etc, jeg har hørt alle men alt koker ned til tøv. Men det er klart, det KAN jo hende jeg lyver? For jeg kan ikke akkuratt dra frem et reagensrør eller videokamera og bevise dette her. Det er det ENESTE dere kan avfeie det jeg sier med - at jeg er en løgner. Dermed må det overnaturlige oppleves selv.

 

Så når du på det grunnlaget der sier jeg mangler "forståelse" så er du ute og ror. Det har ingenting med det å gjøre i det heletatt, det har med å gjøre at min forståelse av virkeligheten ble snudd over natta pga. opplevelser som ikke har noe naturlig forklaring. Dette går på demonisk undertrykkelse og passer derimot som hånd i hanske om du leser bibelen.