Evolution Theory is Error

CDfm · 05-12-2008 5:57pm

Zillah wrote: »

Not literally, of course

Which was Robin's point.

Can we have a getting sick smiley for the hearts and minds phrase please

sink · 05-12-2008 6:07pm

CDfm wrote: »

But this much I know - I have a huge difference on ethics with scientists - so on stuff like stemcell harvesting and abortion. I feel some advocates for atheism from the scientific community want to operate without any controls.

Its not that Christians believe in God that bothers some atheists ( or you)its those pesky little questions on moral and ethics that arise with it.

Some of those scientists are Christians btw. I find it rather insulting that you and many other believers feel that all atheist have a deficit in ethics, considering the source.

CDfm · 05-12-2008 6:21pm

sink wrote: »

Some of those scientists are Christians btw. I find it rather insulting that you and many other believers feel that all atheist have a deficit in ethics, considering the source.

Sorry sink - I dont believe that atheists lack ethics and I apologise if it reads like that.

What I meant is that scientists who are atheists in the media - in ethical issues (representing the scientific community) come accross as arrogant,superior and dismissive of views other than their own.

Because of the diverse religious beliefs it is inevitable that you will get state regulations and they are asked to account more for their behaviour. Accountability is not a bad thing and scientists and medical staff dont seem to like it.

Take the Dr Michael Neary case and the Blood Transfusion Bord/Hepetitis C Enquiry - these guys can wriggle out of anything.

ChocolateSauce · 05-12-2008 6:26pm

CDfm wrote: »

But this much I know - I have a huge difference on ethics with scientists - so on stuff like stemcell harvesting and abortion. I feel some advocates for atheism from the scientific community want to operate without any controls.

Its not that Christians believe in God that bothers some atheists ( or you)its those pesky little questions on moral and ethics that arise with it.

I'm a scientist and an atheist and a humanist, and I have no problem with stemcells. I simply do not believe they are people and thus killing one or a trillion is no different to me. I accept that many people feel they are people and I know that they believe they are being moral by opposing it. I hope you accept that we believe we are not being immoral by destroying them, even if you think we are.

Those pesky little questions are only pesky because they are controversial. They wouldn't be pesky if everyone agreed with stemcell research.

CDfm · 05-12-2008 6:36pm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I'm a scientist and an atheist and a humanist, and I have no problem with stemcells. I simply do not believe they are people and thus killing one or a trillion is no different to me.

Those pesky little questions are only pesky because they are controversial. They wouldn't be pesky if everyone agreed with stemcell research.

I accept that- but cant you obtain stemcells from other means than aborted foetus( which I would not have a problem with)?

Can you accept that I might have an ethical problem where the cells are harvested from aborted foetus's. Im not saying do you agree with me just that could you accept that I have an ethical problem with it.

ChocolateSauce · 05-12-2008 7:04pm

CDfm wrote: »

I accept that- but cant you obtain stemcells from other means than aborted foetus( which I would not have a problem with)?

Can you accept that I might have an ethical problem where the cells are harvested from aborted foetus's. Im not saying do you agree with me just that could you accept that I have an ethical problem with it.

Yes I accept it, and wouldn't do the disservice of refusing to engage in dialogue (although considering I'll personally never be involved in stemcell research as I'm a chemist, not a biologist, I appear to be arguing someone else's point).

The best stem cells currently come only for embryos. Umbilical cord ones are limited in their uses.

There does seem to be, in development, a means of getting the best stem cells from non-foetus sources, and provided these ones (when this technology comes to fruition) are of the same quality as embryonic ones, I see no reason why we shouldn't stop using embryonic ones.

However, this would be a concession to people who have morality fears, and not in any way an admission that using embryonic ones is wrong. It would also be wholly contingent on the premise that they are not inferior to ones obtained from embryos.

I feel that with the vast potential stem cells offer for medical advancement, we as a species have no time to loose, as every day which we are not researching with every penny and brain we have, millions of people are suffering from diseases which will be curable soon, but today cause untold suffering. While I accept that it is by no means the intention of the pro-life movement to cause suffering (the opposite is true), I find it immoral to hold up the research and I do not have a problem with starting the research using embryos before this new technology is developed, and without debate/while debate is going on

CDfm · 05-12-2008 7:20pm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Yes I accept it, and wouldn't do the disservice of refusing to engage in dialogue (although considering I'll personally never be involved in stemcell research as I'm a chemist, not a biologist, I appear to be arguing someone else's point).

The best stem cells currently come only for embryos. Umbilical cord ones are limited in their uses. While I accept that it is by no means the intention of the pro-life movement to cause suffering (the opposite is true), I find it immoral to hold up the research and I do not have a problem with starting the research using embryos before this new technology is developed, and without debate/while debate is going on

I am not part of the pro-life movement BTW. I find the way they argue the cause confusing and misleading as I do the pro-abortion lobby groups.

Am I correct saying that currently -stemcell research does not have any clinical applications but its the potential that is the issue.As I believe it the potential is for regenerative cell growth treatment for people with spine injuries and cancers.

In fact -the arguments framed by both sides IMHO do not give me the information to make an informed choice.

Zombrex · 05-12-2008 7:31pm

CDfm wrote: »

What I meant is that scientists who are atheists in the media - in ethical issues (representing the scientific community) come accross as arrogant,superior and dismissive of views other than their own.

What, all of them?

Well while we are making blanket statements, I imagine it is isn't that they are dismissive of views other than their own, it is that they are dismissive of "Because my god told me so..." views.

I mean what exactly is someone supposed to do with the argument "God says abortion is wrong" if the person doesn't accept your particular god exists in the first place?

It is hardly a compelling argument, "Oh well if your god says so ... "

Would you expect a scientist to be "arrogant, superior and dismissive" if a 5 year old told him that his Teddy Bear says the universe is donut shaped ... ?

robindch · 05-12-2008 7:36pm

CDfm wrote: »

scientists who are atheists in the media - in ethical issues (representing the scientific community) come accross as arrogant,superior and dismissive of views other than their own.

As opposed to preachers, bishops, cardinals, popes and all manner of religious men who have little or no training in medical ethics, who've never worked in human health care, whose knowledge of human biology would embarrass a well-informed ten year old, think it their place to lecture health professionals on their job.

Now, that's arrogant.

CDfm · 05-12-2008 7:45pm

Wicknight wrote: »

What, all of them

the ones Ive met are

Wicknight that post did have a tone like something my mother would have said when I was around 10.

CDfm · 05-12-2008 7:48pm

robindch wrote: »

think it their place to lecture health professionals on their job.

Now, that's arrogant.

hospitals were better when they were run by the nuns -everyone knows that

CerebralCortex · 05-12-2008 10:10pm

CDfm wrote: »

hospitals were better when they were run by the nuns -everyone knows that

Selective rhetorical posting as usual. :rolleyes:

UU · 05-12-2008 10:19pm

CDfm wrote: »

UU - you are a bit of an uber-atheist.

Über-atheist, well that's got to be a first. I prefer sceptic and rationalist. I'm out there to question.

That the Bible is wriiten in an Allegorical way is something that annoys you. That Christianity has adopted this approach for 2000 years seems something you cant handle.

Well what I can't stand is the way certain Christians pick and choose which parts to take literally and which parts to take as you say "allegorically". What is the criteria for this? Also you seem to think that you're speaking for the masses. There are many Christians out there who take the Bible LITERALLY word-for-word. They are most commonly known as fanatical or fundamentalist. The fact that some Christians are taking it allegorically or literally is not the issue insofar as it they don't contradict themselves but a lot of the time they do exactly that and then turn around when this is pointed out and make strange rationalisations or deny the contradicts!

You could say the same about the Irish Constitution written in 1937 - so high court and supreme court cases are odd realisations too. Dont we have scientists questioning Einstein and disproving him and Newton is it - but the laws of physics are fixed?

The difference here is a court of law and the scientific method work very differently than religion does. Religion claims to be above these because a special ingredient known as "faith" is required. A court and science work differently. They observe something and create a theory or a hypothesis based on collected evidence which supports their claim. Often this claim is tried and tested. Arguments against the claim are thrown forward and if the theory manages to stay true to its evidence, then it is accepted. I said before and I will say again, science does not ultimately prove anything to be true or false 100%, there is always room for future evidence which may change the known explanation for a particular theory.

"Scientific laws are the evidence used to support a conclusion. Scientific hypotheses and theories are our best attempts at explaining the behaviour of the world, in ways that can be tested by further experiment. The facts (the scientific laws) must convince us that our theory is a good explanation for what happened."

No one said the Bible was all lovey dovey -where did you get that idea from. It is provocative and maybe it generates great moral and philosophical moral debates because it is.

Well I never said the Bible was all lovely dovey. Many Christians know the Old Testament says things which would raise eyebrows by todays standards but many claim the New Testament supersedes it that Jesus came along and introduced more solid morals.

Maybe St Pauls view was narrow. I dunno. Or maybe we judge ourselves- but scientists cant tell us.That Adam and Eve and Genesis is a composite is a revelation to you means that you cannot be that informed on religion..

Well the Catholic Church accepts St. Paul's theology, it certainly doesn't dismiss it as nonsense.

But this much I know - I have a huge difference on ethics with scientists - so on stuff like stemcell harvesting and abortion. I feel some advocates for atheism from the scientific community want to operate without any controls.

Well scientists have reasons to endorse stem cell research and abortion just as much as people, mainly religious, have the right to protest against it. Operate without controls? Sorry but obviously your understanding of science is limited if you think scientists would like to operate without controls in these areas. Everything in science must be controlled for science is itself a controlled process. But there are many people who support stem-cell research and abortion and I think it's unfair that their voice is not as heard as the religious lobbyists' voices are.

Its not that Christians believe in God that bothers some atheists ( or you)its those pesky little questions on moral and ethics that arise with it.

Well if one wishes to believe in God, I do think they are deluding themselves. It might give them comfort, it might give their lives meaning but that does not make God's existence any more real. I don't believe in God because there is scarce, vague evidence for his existence. Not just that but it's also a matter of improbability and God is very very improbable indeed. But if people want to believe in god, gods, fairies, unicorns, whatever then they can just as long as it's kept personal and they don't try to convert others. Also I don't agree with religions being given power in state and civil matters they should be treated like any other organisation. Well the morals and ethics of god or whatever don't bother me so much because I do not accept that our sense of morality comes from god or religious scripture.

Zillah · 06-12-2008 12:44pm

CDfm wrote: »

Am I correct saying that currently -stemcell research does not have any clinical applications but its the potential that is the issue.As I believe it the potential is for regenerative cell growth treatment for people with spine injuries and cancers.

The potential for stem cell treatments is hard to exaggerate. Once fully developed and researched they could be so pervasively useful as to be in the same tier as antibiotics in terms of how they change how medicine is done. The list of things they could be used for is staggering. Diabetes, nerve/spinal injuries, organ replacement, brain damage, Parkinsons, skin grafts.... We're talking about the kind of technology where you could order a new liver to be grown for you, where bone marrow comes in a plastic wrapper, where what once would be considered a crippling spinal injury now means you'll merely need a stem cell treatment to repair the nerve before you start physiotherapy. Stem cells are not just a new drug or method they're working on, this is a whole new field from which could come a whole host of seemingly magical treatments.

There's a reason the scientific community is willing to go head to head with religious groups over this.

Hivemind187 · 06-12-2008 1:10pm

CDfm wrote: »

hospitals were better when they were run by the nuns -everyone knows that

Tell you what, next time you are in being treated for cancer you can choose the prayers of your nun next to the bed, I'll have your share of the chemo.

That is possibly the most astonishingly ill-informed statement I've seen here in a long time.

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 06-12-2008 1:33pm

UU wrote: »

Well what I can't stand is the way certain Christians pick and choose which parts to take literally and which parts to take as you say "allegorically". What is the criteria for this? Also you seem to think that you're speaking for the masses. There are many Christians out there who take the Bible LITERALLY word-for-word. They are most commonly known as fanatical or fundamentalist. The fact that some Christians are taking it allegorically or literally is not the issue insofar as it they don't contradict themselves but a lot of the time they do exactly that and then turn around when this is pointed out and make strange rationalisations or deny the contradicts!

In catholicism, once something is disproven or falls ouf of favour with the general public (incest, 7 day creation etc etc), it instantly becomes allegorical...oh and it's a sin to question it.

The church is no stranger to whoring itself to the masses.

PDN · 06-12-2008 4:36pm

Sean_K wrote: »

In catholicism, once something is disproven or falls ouf of favour with the general public (incest, 7 day creation etc etc), it instantly becomes allegorical...oh and it's a sin to question it.

The church is no stranger to whoring itself to the masses.

Nice theory, but facts are stubborn things.

Many of the early Church fathers, including Augustine, interpreted the 7-day creation allegorically centuries ago.

ChocolateSauce · 06-12-2008 5:52pm

PDN wrote: »

Nice theory, but facts are stubborn things.

Many of the early Church fathers, including Augustine, interpreted the 7-day creation allegorically centuries ago.

I find it hard to give them kudos for not being blundering idiots.

PDN · 06-12-2008 8:53pm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I find it hard to give them kudos for not being blundering idiots.

Nobody's asking anyone to give them kudos. It simply demonstrates the falsity of Sean_K's statement. I'm not surprised he thanked you for attempting to deflect attention away from that fact.

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 06-12-2008 9:11pm

PDN wrote: »

Nobody's asking anyone to give them kudos. It simply demonstrates the falsity of Sean_K's statement. I'm not surprised he thanked you for attempting to deflect attention away from that fact.

The fact that a few blokes saw how unlikely the genesis was back in the day has no bearing on my point.

The church backtracked not too long ago on it's stance on the mechanics of the solar system.

Why aren't they more forceful in enforcing their stance on masturbation? Because doing so would turn away 99.9% of males from the church.

Why don't they speak out for fathers having sex with their daughters?

Why don't they emphasise the fact that receiving communion is a sin after missing a week of mass if you haven't gone to confession in the interim? Because they'll alientate people.

Why do they continue to marry people who have had sex outside of wedlock?

PDN · 06-12-2008 9:27pm

Sean_K wrote: »

The fact that a few blokes saw how unlikely the genesis was back in the day has no bearing on my point.

The church backtracked not too long ago on it's stance on the mechanics of the solar system.

Why aren't they more forceful in enforcing their stance on masturbation? Because doing so would turn away 99.9% of males from the church.

Why don't they speak out for fathers having sex with their daughters?

Why don't they emphasise the fact that receiving communion is a sin after missing a week of mass if you haven't gone to confession in the interim? Because they'll alientate people.

Why do they continue to marry people who have had sex outside of wedlock?

And none of those things have the slightest connection with the subject of our discussion, namely the allegorical interpretation of the Genesis Creation stories.

A classic piece of bluster from someone trying to avoid admitting they were flat out wrong.

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 06-12-2008 9:40pm

PDN wrote: »

And none of those things have the slightest connection with the subject of our discussion, namely the allegorical interpretation of the Genesis Creation stories.

A classic piece of bluster from someone trying to avoid admitting they were flat out wrong.

I'm always quick to admit when I'm wrong. If i'm wrong.

My point is, how can you take a religious take on a subject seriously if the supposed absolute truth changes with time.

PDN · 06-12-2008 9:57pm

Sean_K wrote: »

I'm always quick to admit when I'm wrong. If i'm wrong.

My point is, how can you take a religious take on a subject seriously if the supposed absolute truth changes with time.

That would be a debate you would need to have with a Catholic (which I am not).

Absolute truth does not change, but man's interpretation (or misinterpretation) of that truth certainly does. And any human organisation, including any church, which claims to perfectly understand the truth is lying.

CDfm · 07-12-2008 1:52am

UU wrote: »

Über-atheist, well that's got to be a first. I prefer sceptic and rationalist. I'm out there to question.

The difference here is a court of law and the scientific method work very differently than religion does. Religion claims to be above these because a special ingredient known as "faith" is required. A court and science work differently. They observe something and create a theory or a hypothesis based on collected evidence which supports their claim.

Well I never said the Bible was all lovely dovey

Well the Catholic Church accepts St. Paul's theology, it certainly doesn't dismiss it as nonsense.

Well scientists have reasons to endorse stem cell research and abortion just as much as people, mainly religious, have the right to protest against it. Operate without controls? Sorry but obviously your understanding of science is limited if you think scientists would like to operate without controls in these areas. Everything in science must be controlled for science is itself a controlled process. But there are many people who support stem-cell research and abortion and I think it's unfair that their voice is not as heard as the religious lobbyists' voices are.

Well if one wishes to believe in God, I do think they are deluding themselves.

Yup - UU - uber is appropriate.

For you a belief in God gets in the way of logic. You cant take that something was observed 2000 plus years ago & that people from then wrote down their observations.Its just a different way of looking at the world than you have.

To be a scientist you have to have faith in other scientists and the system of controls. So you have faith- just not in God.

The Warren Commisions Report on the Assaination of JFK is a lot longer than the Four Gospels and a lot of witnesses didnt agree and that was 45 years ago - do you accept it happened bearing in mind you werent there?
Probably. Because people testified it did. The same with lots of other stuff.
If all the witnesses testified in the same way it would have been odd- the same with the Bible.

Well Christians have reasons to believe that stem search research on cells taken from aborted foestuses is wrong. Something about the thou shalt not kill think. Funnily enough - people who dont agree with abortion are against stem cell harvesting thru that method. Does that make us stupid - no-it makes us realists.

People who believe in abortion and stemcell research have a different set of ethics that maybe Christians find odd.We are I believe the only species to terminate pregnancy.It is wrong to dress that up as a freedom- I cant conceptualise making that decision- it is equally wrong to suggest that some non-christians and atheists dont have reservations.

There are some scientists and medical professionals who are Christians and dont believe what you do.

Your real beef seems to be with people who have ethics based on a set of beliefs or philosophy other than what you believe to be scientific.

So you cant accept that people who look at the world using a system of belief than science have any right to and are delusional. Thats a bit dramatic isnt it.

Zombrex · 07-12-2008 2:45am

PDN wrote: »

Nice theory, but facts are stubborn things.

Many of the early Church fathers, including Augustine, interpreted the 7-day creation allegorically centuries ago.

yes, facts are stubborn things ...

Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church has taken the 7-day Creation as allegorically since the time of Augustine ...?

PDN · 07-12-2008 2:51am

Wicknight wrote: »

yes, facts are stubborn things ...

Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church has taken the 7-day Creation as allegorically since the time of Augustine ...?

No, I have nowhere suggested any such thing. The Catholic Church has changed on many things many times - for any number of reasons.

What I am nailing is the lie that the Catholic Church, or indeed other Christians, somehow invented an allegorical interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis in order to conform to public acceptance of evolution. That was the argument of Sean_K and he is not the first denizen of this board to assert that particular piece of fiction.

Zombrex · 07-12-2008 3:04am

PDN wrote: »

What I am nailing is the lie that the Catholic Church, or indeed other Christians, somehow invented an allegorical interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis in order to conform to public acceptance of evolution.

"invented an allegorical interpretation"

Well first of all saying Augustine had an allegorical interpretation of Genesis doesn't "nail the lie" in anyway because Augustine wasn't "Catholicism". Catholicism is the official dogma of the Catholic Church. I wouldn't have thought that would have to be explained to you.

Secondly there is a very good case to be made that this is exactly what the Catholic Church did in the first half of the 20th Century to try to and prevent the Church becoming out of step with modern scientific theories which predicted ages of the Earth and formation of the Earth that were incompatable with a literal interpretation of Biblical Creation

PDN · 07-12-2008 3:26am

Wicknight wrote: »

Catholicism is the official dogma of the Catholic Church. I wouldn't have thought that would have to be explained to you.

It doesn't need to be explained to me because it isn't true. It is you playing Humpty Dumpty once again to redefine words to suit your purposes.

Catholicism is accepted by all of us on these boards to refer to the faith, system, and practice of the Catholic Church. When posters speak of 'children being sexually abused within Catholicism' they are not stating that it was official Catholic dogma to sexually abuse children.

Augustine wasn't "Catholicism".

Sigh. Augustine (recognised as a saint by the Catholic Church) is one of a number of church fathers who taught an allegorical interpretation of the 7-day creation. The Church Fathers are part of the tradition which, together with Scripture, forms the basis of Catholicism's authority.

We have other atheist posters in this thread who confidently assert that something must be the position of the Catholic Church because it was taught to them at a Catholic school. Now we have you arguing that Augustine, a Catholic Bishop and a Doctor of the Church, is not Catholicism! I find this truly surreal.

Secondly there is a very good case to be made that this is exactly what the Catholic Church did in the first half of the 20th Century to try to and prevent the Church becoming out of step with modern scientific theories which predicted ages of the Earth and formation of the Earth that were incompatable with a literal interpretation of Biblical Creation

So the Catholic Church 'invented' something in the first half of the Twentieth Century which they knew had been taught by some of their Church fathers centuries earlier? OK - I can't be bothered arguing that with you at all. I've got better things to do - like going and inventing the light bulb.

Zombrex · 07-12-2008 4:04am

CDfm wrote: »

the ones Ive met are

How many atheist scientists in the media have you met ... ?

CDfm wrote: »

Wicknight that post did have a tone like something my mother would have said when I was around 10.

Your mother was clearly a wise and well spoken person

Zombrex · 07-12-2008 4:06am

PDN wrote: »

Catholicism is accepted by all of us on these boards to refer to the faith, system, and practice of the Catholic Church. When posters speak of 'children being sexually abused within Catholicism' they are not stating that it was official Catholic dogma to sexually abuse children.

I'm not sure anyone would actually say "children being sexually abused within Catholicism", since that sentence doesn't make much sense precisely because Catholicism is the "faith, system and practice" (ie dogma) of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has never had a policy of sexually abusing people (that I'm aware of)

In fact this is a pretty good analogy in support of my original point. Because a catholic sexually abuses someone doesn't mean that sexual abuse is the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in pretty much the same way that a catholic determining that Genesis creation is allegorical has very little to do with the doctrine of Catholicism.

You can wheel out Augistine all you like and say "Ha! Look! He didn't!!!" but that has very little to do with Sean's original point does it?

PDN wrote: »

Sigh. Augustine (recognised as a saint by the Catholic Church) is one of a number of church fathers who taught an allegorical interpretation of the 7-day creation.

And ... ?

PDN wrote: »

The Church Fathers are part of the tradition which, together with Scripture, forms the basis of Catholicism's authority.

And ... ?

Again, are you suggesting that the Catholic Church has taken the 7-day Creation as allegorically since the time of Augustine

I imagine you aren't, since you no doubt know that such an assertion is completely untrue. But then one has to wonder what exactly you think you are demonstrating by mentioning Augustine "formed the basis of Catholicism's authority"

PDN wrote: »

Now we have you arguing that Augustine, a Catholic Bishop and a Doctor of the Church, is not Catholicism! I find this truly surreal.

Well it is quite easy to understand PDN, simply reverse your statement.

Augustine was Catholicism

Nope, doesn't work does it. Augustine was a Catholic who's opinions have been very important to other Catholics. Was he "Catholicism", did his views shape all or most of Catholic doctrine? Nope, of course not. He wasn't even a Pope.

Such a claim is nonsense (and you will no doubt now claim you were making no such assertions

)

So again what exactly do you think you are demonstrating with Augustine?

PDN wrote: »

So the Catholic Church 'invented' something in the first half of the Twentieth Century which they knew had been taught by some of their Church fathers centuries earlier?

Where did you get this "invented" from. Am I missing something? Did someone claim that the Catholic Church in the 20th century "invented" the idea that Genesis could be allegorical?

Because reading Sean's post he merely claims that they took that position when it was adopted by the masses, the Church reflecting the masses rather than the other way around.

Evolution Theory is Error

Comments