Darwin's theory

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... I have never come across an Atheist who didn't believe in Evolution.
... its a key part of their worldview ... which holds to a belief in a Universe without God ... that 'created itself'.

Have you ever come across a Christian who doesn't believe in mice? I'd guess not. Does that make mice a key part of the Christian worldview?

I guess that on the 'origins issue' they are Practical Atheists.

I'd guess it would be massively offensive to most Christians who believe in evolution to suggest such a thing.

Brian Shanahan

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Isn't it? If the creationist hypothesis is indeed the one which evidence supports, surely at least one scientist from outside these religions would agree with it. But this has yet to happen.

I wouldn't be 100% on that statement. For example this is that ould snake oil salesman the Dalai Lama's view on evolution:

Con-man who wants theocracy restored in Tibet* wrote:

From the Buddhist's perspective, the idea of these mutations being random events is deeply unsatisfying for a theory that purports to explain the origin of life.

*Please note that I don't condone or agree with what China is doing there either. Both choices, going with Chinese opression or religious opression are equally evil in my opinion.

Doctor Jimbob

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I wouldn't be 100% on that statement. For example this is that ould snake oil salesman the Dalai Lama's view on evolution:

The point was no scientist outside the Abrahamic religions has found this supposed 'evidence' that proves the creation story told by said religions. I'd hazard a guess that other religious would find 'evidence' to support their own creation myths.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'm going to try to deal with the repeated claim that evolutionism and creationism are equivalent in that they're both different ways of interpreting the evidence to fit a given worldview. I'll ignore for the moment which is more likely, I just want to deal with that one claim.

Evolution is supported by those of all religions and none, regardless of their personal beliefs in how life, the universe, and everything came about.

Creationism is supported by a select group of religions, and it fits their worldview.

Which one is more likely to be based on an objective interpretation of the evidence?

Your are reductionist and presenting a false dichotomy.

There are many varieties of Evolution ... and Atheists tolerate all kinds of interpretations under the banner of 'Evolution' in order to achieve common ground with other people.
However, they are very hardline in deeming that only their variety of hard materialistic 'Evolution' can be endorsed by science or taught in school.

Its a classic 'bait and switch' ... ye bait/attract Theists to Evolution by telling them that they can believe in their God(s) and Evolution ... and ye then 'switch' to an absolutist materialistic form of Evolution ... when it comes to spreading the theory over the popular media and in schools.

... and the hapless Theists who have 'crossed the rubicon' and believe in evolution, because other people do, find that they cannot reconcile it ultimately with God ... and many abandon their faith in God as a result ... or they end up with a meaningless God of their own making ... that even they don't believe in.
... all 'grist to the mill' of Atheism.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Your are reductionist and presenting a false dichotomy.

You're kidding, right?

catallus

J C wrote: »

... and the hapless Theists who have 'crossed the rubicon' and believe in evolution, because other people do, find that they cannot reconcile it ultimately with God ... and many abandon their faith in God as a result ... or they end up with a meaningless God of their own making ... that even they don't believe in.
... all 'grist to the mill' of Atheism.

While I'd agree with the rest of your post, this part here strikes me as being a teeny bit paranoid.

The power of faith is fuelled by the internal spirit, not by external phenomena.

Endowing "Atheism" with the self-knowledge to be able to plan such a thing, as ridiculous as that is on the face of it, and as attractive as it would be to create a strawman for some of those are just tired of the endless mindless meme, is just plain paranoia.

Capt'n Midnight

J C wrote: »

Denial is a river in Africa.:eek::)

fyp

J C

smcgiff wrote: »

Atheists believe that if they walk off a building they will fall.

You believe an omnipotent being gives a damn about what an insignificant being like you (or anybody) gets up to.

BIG Difference

When all else fails ... try a strawman!!!:eek:

It may surprise you, but Theists (including Creationists) also believe that if they walk off a building they will fall.

All beings are interested in what others think and get up to ... and an omniscient being has the capacity to know what everybody thinks and gets up to.

... and that's the BIG Difference (with a BIG God) allright!!!:pac:

J C

catallus wrote: »

While I'd agree with the rest of your post, this part here strikes me as being a teeny bit paranoid.

The power of faith is fuelled by the internal spirit, not by external phenomena.

Endowing "Atheism" with the self-knowledge to be able to plan such a thing, as ridiculous as that is on the face of it, and as attractive as it would be to create a strawman for some of those are just tired of the endless mindless meme, is just plain paranoia.

Paranoia is an unfounded fear of something.
The current emptying of the mainstream churches is correlated with a loss of faith in God by younger people, in particular ... who have been most exposed to Atheism and it 'pet pony' of materialistic evolution.

I am not fearful of Evolution or Atheism ... and the damage that these twin ideas have caused to Christianity (with considerable help from the carry-on within Christianity itself) is obvious.

... so no ... I'm not paranoid ... as I don't fear anything ... and the evidence is there for all to see that many former members of the Christian Churches are now Practical Atheists and Materialistic Evolutionists.

... and catallus ... could I ask you, if you can't help me on something, please don't hinder me, like the rest of the posters do.

... there is plenty for you to challenge in the posts of the Atheists on this thread ... without helping them by taking me to task over non-existent paranoia.

Practical Atheism has ruled the World ... via capitalism in the west ... and communism in the east ... so I wouldn't under-estimate the power and determination of atheism to promote its worldview at all.

Thargor

J C wrote: »

... and Theists are just the same.

I came to my to my belief in Creation through science, mathematics, philosophy and reflection.

Oh please do tell us what mathematics you used to justify your delusions, or most likely just post an irrelevant Youtube video as your answer and then get back to trolling.

Doctor Jimbob

Thargor wrote: »

Oh please do tell us what mathematics you used to justify your delusions, or most likely just post an irrelevant Youtube video as your answer and then get back to trolling.

If he's trolling I actually respect it. That's some serious dedication.

Capt'n Midnight

J C wrote: »

150,000 Evolutionist 'years' allright.:)
The problem is that the regression equations are out by a factor of about 25.
... it happens ... Sheldon Cooper was off by a factor of 10,000!!!

Must try that drinking game where you take a drink every time there is a scientific inaccuracy on that show.



This oddly enough is pretty accurate of what the Sheldon does.

Penny: So, what’s new in the world of physics?

Leonard: Nothing.

Penny: Really, nothing?

Leonard: Well, with the exception of string theory, not much has happened since the 1930’s, and you can’t prove string theory, at best you can say “hey, look, my idea has an internal logical consistency.”

Penny: Ah. Well I’m sure things will pick up.

catallus

J C wrote: »

Practical Atheism has ruled the World ... via capitalism in the west ... and communism in the east ... so I wouldn't under-estimate the power and determination of atheism to promote its worldview at all.

Maybe paranoia is the wrong word. But I do believe there's a willingness on the part of too many otherwise mindful people to attribute things such as untrammeled capitalism or communism to an underlying atheistic philosophy when such a thing is as wildly illogical as atheism itself.

Tyranny cares little for religion, one way or the other.

I don't think evolution or any other scientific discoveries or developments have damaged Christianity (or any other religion for that matter). Those who facilely claim modern scientific knowledge as a victory for irreligiosity are as blind as those who reject god as being a "sky-fairy".

As for "under-estimating" the power of atheism, it is a false light. Have faith in your faith.

J C

Thargor wrote: »

Oh please do tell us what mathematics you used to justify your delusions, or most likely just post an irrelevant Youtube video as your answer and then get back to trolling.

Here is a relevant Youtube video that does the maths on the odds against the Complex Functional Specified Information that we see in life arising via non-intelligently directed processes.

J C

catallus wrote: »

Maybe paranoia is the wrong word. But I do believe there's a willingness on the part of too many otherwise mindful people to attribute things such as untrammeled capitalism or communism to an underlying atheistic philosophy when such a thing is as wildly illogical as atheism itself.

Tyranny cares little for religion, one way or the other.

I agree that tyranny will use any 'flag of convenience' to promote itself ... and it can (and has) used both Theism and Atheism to its own end.

catallus wrote: »

I don't think evolution or any other scientific discoveries or developments have damaged Christianity (or any other religion for that matter). Those who facilely claim modern scientific knowledge as a victory for irreligiosity are as blind as those who reject god as being a "sky-fairy".

If we all arose via purely materialistic processes ... then that is the end of Christianity ... there was no Fall ... and therefore no need for redemption ... and Jesus Christ was a nice but ultimately deceived guy whose death was as meaningless as all of the billions of Human deaths, since and before.
Christianity will struggle on like a headless chicken for a while ... but it is doomed to extinction, if we weren't created by God - and this can be objectively demonstrated.

catallus wrote: »

As for "under-estimating" the power of atheism, it is a false light. Have faith in your faith.

I have faith in my faith ... but I also don't under-estimate the power of the alternatives ...
... that are packaged and marketed in very shiny attractive clothes indeed.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Here is a relevant Youtube video that does the maths on the odds against the Complex Functional Specified Information that we see in life arising via non-intelligently directed processes.

Thanks J C.

I needed a laugh.

catallus

J C wrote: »

If we all arose via purely materialistic processes ... then that is the end of Christianity ... there was no Fall ... and therefore no need for redemption ....

"Purely materialistic processes" : can you not see that argument is on a plane from which faith is elevated? You seem to have swallowed the materialist kool-aid if you are going to argue on such terms. Our redemption is necessitated by our very creation in the corporeal realm. This is our Fall.

Anyways, if you're happy fighting the fight on those grounds, who am I to stop you!?:p

But it's about as useful as shooting at fleas.

J C

catallus wrote: »

"Purely materialistic processes" : can you not see that argument is on a plane from which faith is elevated? You seem to have swallowed the materialist kool-aid if you are going to argue on such terms. Our redemption is necessitated by our very creation in the corporeal realm. This is our Fall.

Anyways, if you're happy fighting the fight on those grounds, who am I to stop you!?:p

But it's about as useful as shooting at fleas.

... I am debating on both a spiritual and physical basis.

Our redemption is predicated on a Fall having occurred, in the first place.

... otherwise we are just naturally produced 'gizmos' ... who come and go like 'flies on the desert air'.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Thanks J C.

I needed a laugh.

Don't we all.:)

Thargor

J C wrote: »

Here is a relevant Youtube video that does the maths on the odds against the Complex Functional Specified Information that we see in life arising via non-intelligently directed processes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

What a load of bilge, its just the tornado in a junkyard crap dressed up in numbers for people who dont understand evolution.

J C

Thargor wrote: »

What a load of bilge, its just the tornado in a junkyard crap dressed up in numbers for people who dont understand evolution.

Do you have an issue with anything specific that it says?

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Do you have an issue with anything specific that it says?

Mostly the bit between 0:00 and 7:28 for me personally. The rest was grand.

Thargor

J C wrote: »

Do you have an issue with anything specific that it says?

Yes, basically every sentence that came out of his mouth, a major one being the way he calculated the odds of a genetic sequence emerging from random molecules assembling themselves in a bucket of water or whatever, that's not how it works and should be obvious to a child, but I think you know that.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

... and Sheldon ended with the observation that "now I'm worse than a fraud ... I'm practically a Biologist"!!!

I wonder what could he possibly mean?:pac:

http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/435:_Purity

Surely any scientist would know of that joke? :eek:

EoghanIRL

J C wrote: »

Do you have an issue with anything specific that it says?

Do you even biochem ?

SaveOurLyric

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Thanks J C.

I needed a laugh.

Well, I checked the sums he does in it and they look OK. Also, he has a friend who has a PhD in Caltech so I guess he knows what he is talking about.
So Darwinian evolution does look to be wrong. OK, to be pernickity, we can say it looks unlikely in the extreme. The number dont lie, and the with the odds he calculates, we can now pretty much discount Darwin. Which does make it look like someone who understood how to put together amino acids in a way that would create us and plants and other animals so that we wouldnt starve, did just that. Which is pretty clever without a doubt. And looks to be the best thoery for the moment. (BTW, does anyone know what Unversity that is ?).

MrPudding

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Similar happened when the Higgs Boson was titled "the God particle". At some point scientists will realize that using religious language under artistic license, causes more harm than good. It either confuses.... or is willfully misunderstood with intent.

My understanding of this, which comes from a tv programme the name of which alludes me, is that it was actually called the 'god damned' particle. The source of this was, apparently the frequently asked question 'where is the god damned particle.' This was supposed shortened to the 'god particle' by a copy editor that didn't want to use a swear word.

Not sure if it is true, but I saw it on tv, so it must be.

MrP

MrPudding

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Well, I checked the sums he does in it and they look OK. Also, he has a friend who has a PhD in Caltech so I guess he knows what he is talking about.
So Darwinian evolution does look to be wrong. OK, to be pernickity, we can say it looks unlikely in the extreme. The number dont lie, and the with the odds he calculates, we can now pretty much discount Darwin. Which does make it look like someone who understood how to put together amino acids in a way that would create us and plants and other animals so that we wouldnt starve, did just that. Which is pretty clever without a doubt. And looks to be the best thoery for the moment. (BTW, does anyone know what Unversity that is ?).

<sigh> and you were doing so well.

MrP

obplayer

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Well, I checked the sums he does in it and they look OK. Also, he has a friend who has a PhD in Caltech so I guess he knows what he is talking about.
So Darwinian evolution does look to be wrong. OK, to be pernickity, we can say it looks unlikely in the extreme. The number dont lie, and the with the odds he calculates, we can now pretty much discount Darwin. Which does make it look like someone who understood how to put together amino acids in a way that would create us and plants and other animals so that we wouldnt starve, did just that. Which is pretty clever without a doubt. And looks to be the best thoery for the moment. (BTW, does anyone know what Unversity that is ?).

The lecture he gives is nothing to do with Darwinian evolution, it is a lecture on the possibility of life first arriving, that first self-replicating molecular structure, by chance. It has nothing at all to do with evolution which is exclusively about what happens once life has arisen. As to how life first arose, that is a fascinating debate but a separate one.

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

I agree that tyranny will use any 'flag of convenience' to promote itself ... and it can (and has) used both Theism and Atheism to its own end.

If we all arose via purely materialistic processes ... then that is the end of Christianity ... there was no Fall ... and therefore no need for redemption ... and Jesus Christ was a nice but ultimately deceived guy whose death was as meaningless as all of the billions of Human deaths, since and before.
Christianity will struggle on like a headless chicken for a while ... but it is doomed to extinction, if we weren't created by God - and this can be objectively demonstrated.

I have faith in my faith ... but I also don't under-estimate the power of the alternatives ...
... that are packaged and marketed in very shiny attractive clothes indeed.

"shiny attractive clothes" damn those facts, making themselves look appealing. That's when you break out the talking snakes and people living in whales. Facts are a gateway to things like thinking.

Maybe there's a special type of self loathing required to be a committed Christian. After all it's a great business model, convince people they're somehow broken and need spiritual mending, and there's only one person who can do it. Who happens to be the person who made you broken to begin with...

You're basically committing yourself to eternal worship of a tyrant because he couldn't manage to stop two people from eating an apple. The mental gymnastics behind such a belief system are actually boggling.