|
|
#3
05-18-2005, 02:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: God and Evolution
[ QUOTE ]
God created evolution. [/ QUOTE ]  pwned. Do you see why? 
|
|
#7
05-18-2005, 04:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: God and Evolution
[ QUOTE ]
which god? [/ QUOTE ] Good question, and it gives me excuse to post one of my favorite essays by H.L. Mencken. Where is the graveyard of dead gods? - H.L. Mencken Where is the graveyard of dead gods? What lingering mourner waters their mounds? There was a time when Jupiter was the king of the gods, and any man who doubted his puissance was ipso facto a barbarian and an ignoramus. But where in all the world is there a man who worships Jupiter today? And who of Huitzilopochtli? In one year - and it is no more than five hundred years ago - 50,000 youths and maidens were slain in sacrifice to him. Today, if he is remembered at all, it is only by some vagrant savage in the depths of the Mexican forest. Huitzilopochtli, like many other gods, had no human father; his mother was a virtuous widow; he was born of an apparently innocent flirtation that she carried out with the sun. When he frowned, his father, the sun, stood still. When he roared with rage, earthquakes engulfed whole cities. When he thirsted he was watered with 10,000 gallons of human blood. But today Huitzilopochtli is as magnificently forgotten as Allen G. Thurman. Once the peer of Allah, Buddha and Wotan, he is now the peer of Richmond P. Hobson, Alton B. Parker, Adelina Patti, General Weyler and Tom Sharkey. Speaking of Huitzilopochtli recalls his brother Tezcatilpoca. Tezcatilpoca was almost as powerful; he consumed 25,000 virgins a year. Lead me to his tomb: I would weep, and hang a couronne des perles. But who knows where it is? Or where the grave of Quitzalcoatl is? Or Xiehtecuthli? Or Centeotl, that sweet one? Or Tlazolteotl, the goddess of love? Of Mictlan? Or Xipe? Or all the host of Tzitzimitles? Where are their bones? Where is the willow on which they hung their harps? In what forlorn and unheard-of Hell do they await their resurrection morn? Who enjoys their residuary estates? Or that of Dis, whom Caesar found to be the chief god of the Celts? Or that of Tarves, the bull? Or that of Moccos, the pig? Or that of Epona, the mare? Or that of Mullo, the celestial jackass? There was a time when the Irish revered all these gods, but today even the drunkest Irishman laughs at them. But they have company in oblivion: the Hell of dead gods is as crowded as the Presbyterian Hell for babies. Damona is there, and Esus, and Drunemeton, and Silvana, and Dervones, and Adsalluta, and Deva, and Belisima, and Uxellimus, and Borvo, and Grannos, and Mogons. All mighty gods in their day, worshipped by millions, full of demands and impositions, able to bind and loose - all gods of the first class. Men labored for generations to build vast temples to them - temples with stones as large as hay-wagons. The business of interpreting their whims occupied thousands of priests, bishops, archbishops. To doubt them was to die, usually at the stake. Armies took to the field to defend them against infidels; villages were burned, women and children butchered, cattle were driven off. Yet in the end they all withered and died, and today there is none so poor to do them reverence. What has become of Sutekh, once the high god of the whole Nile Valley? What has become of: Resheph, Baal, Anath, Astarte, Hadad, Nebo, Dagon, Melek, Yau, Ahijah, Amon-Re, Isis, Osiris, Ptah, Molech? All were gods of the highest eminence. Many of them are mentioned with fear and trembling in the Old Testament. They ranked, five or six thousand years ago, with Yahweh Himself; the worst of them stood far higher than Thor. Yet they have all gone down the chute, and with them the following: Arianrod, Nuada, Argetlam, Mara, Morrigu, Tagd, Govannon, Goibniu, Gunfled, Odin, Dagda, Ogma, Ogryvan, Marzin, Dea, Diana of Ephesus, Dia, Robigus, Iuno Lucina, Cronos, Saturn, Vesta, Furrina, Zer-panitu, Pluto, Merodach, Engurra, Elum, Belus, Marduk, Ubilulu, Nin, U-dimmer-an-kia, Persephone, U-sab-sib, Istar, U-Mersi, Lagas, Tammuz, Venus, Beltis, Nirig, Nusku, En-Mersi, Aa, Assur, Sin, Beltu, Apsu, Kuski-banda, Elali, Nin-azu, Mami, Qarradu, Zaraqu, Ueras, Zagaga Ask the rector to lend you any good book on comparative religion; you will find them all listed. They were gods of the highest dignity - gods of civilized peoples - worshipped and believed in by millions. All were omnipotent, omniscient and immortal. And all are dead
|
|
#10
05-18-2005, 07:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: God and Evolution
"God" and "evolution" are very imprecise terms, as they mean different things to different people.
Generally, "evolution" for most people means: 1. A theory of how life originally came to be on earth 2. A process by which existing life progresses on earth Pro-evolution arguments are utterly dependent on mutation as the key process through which existing life evolves. Depending on mutation to argue evolution is a pretty weak strategy, yet all arguments for evolution depend on the weak-at-best mutation premise. Origin-of-life evolutionary arguments have no legs whatsoever. (pun intended) The origin of life of earth is not nearly explained by 'evolution'. A more rational theory is found here, as are the sound logical premises that support it. Life's origin on earth appears to be from elsewhere, and what we currently call "evolution" appears to be pre-existing DNA programming that is on a "time-release" schedule and/or is very sensitive to environmental factors. http://www.panspermia.org "Cosmic Ancestry is a new theory pertaining to evolution and the origin of life on Earth. It holds that life on Earth was seeded from space, and that life's evolution to higher forms depends on genetic programs that come from space. (It accepts the Darwinian account of evolution that does not require new genetic programs.) It is a wholly scientific, testable theory for which evidence is accumulating." "The case for Cosmic Ancestry is not yet proven, of course. At this point the best reason to notice it is that sustained evolutionary progress and the origin of life on Earth are not satisfactorily accounted for by Darwinism. We will mention some of the flaws in that theory, but our primary purpose is to present Cosmic Ancestry as a viable, new scientific account of evolutionary progress and the origin of life on Earth."
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
