Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back a page or two to re-sync the thread and this will then show latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
...I certainly do have the answer ... but very few people would like to hear it ... so I'll keep it to myself, if that's alright with you!!!!:Ddoctoremma wrote: »For sure, why don't you treat me like a child.
Or could it be that you don't have an answer....0 -
...how very 'democratic' of you!!!!:Ddoctoremma wrote: »Indeed. Democracy does not impart truth. Just because a lot of people want something doesn't make it right.
...I don't share share your mistrust in the ordinary person ... but there are many who do!!!!0 -
... so if you want to have your Atheistic Religious point of view included in an essentially religious matter ...
I really don't see how the origin of life is an essentially religious matter. This smacks of special pleading and I am unwilling to pursue this ludicrous line of thought with you.then you should extend the same right to people of other faiiths ... especially when you intend to present your religious perspective to the children from these other faiths!!!!
This strawman has gone far enough. I do not believe in evolution, I accept it as a scientific model. Faith doesn't come into it and it is not a religious perspective. Children deserve to learn the truth, as far as we can discern it. No more, no less. If I were to consider my views as religious, I would have equal right to demand that my children are not subject to any creationist views. Would you accept my right to demand this?...similarly, if you are claiming scientific validity for your point of view it is not sufficient
Scientific validity would be sufficient to get your stuff into a science class. Your theories are not scientifically valid, therefore not taught. It's quite an easy concept to grasp.just to use a self-serving definition of science to protect your 'pet theory' from the devastation that results when Creation Scientists scientifically examine ANY aspect of Materialistic Evolution!!!
Lol, this is straws being clutched for dear life....and its certainly completely unacceptable to use the full force of law to suppress invalidating information on your theory and validating infomation on alternative theories ... just because the validate the existence of God!!!!
I will rely on the force of the law to protect my children from creationist psychological brainwashing. It's a kind of child abuse, when you think about it...0 -
-
... I would of course accept your right to pass on your wordview to your children ... without any interference from Creationists, if that is what you want.doctoremma wrote: »I really don't see how the origin of life is an essentially religious matter. This smacks of special pleading and I am unwilling to pursue this ludicrous line of thought with you.
This strawman has gone far enough. I do not believe in evolution, I accept it as a scientific model. Faith doesn't come into it and it is not a religious perspective. Children deserve to learn the truth, as far as we can discern it. No more, no less. If I were to consider my views as religious, I would have equal right to demand that my children are not subject to any creationist views. Would you accept my right to demand this?
I also respect your right to hold your own particular worldview ... and all I ask is that you accord similar rights to me!!
Indeed, I would go much further than you, and I would want my children to be taught a balanced science curriculum that fairly addresses the various origins theories, including evolution and Creation Science...and that is actually what has occurred with my children.
... I don't accept that scientific validity alone, is sufficient to have Creation Science given its rightful place alongside Evolution ...doctoremma wrote: »Scientific validity would be sufficient to get your stuff into a science class. Your theories are not scientifically valid, therefore not taught. It's quite an easy concept to grasp.
... not when a self-serving Materialistic definition of science is used ... and the claims are being evaluated by people who have a vested interest in the outcome favouring their Materialistic worldview ... and with a track-record of rejecting everything that appears to threaten this worldview, irrespective of its merit or the eminence of its author!!!:(
If I may say so, I think that relying on law to protect your children from valid scientific ideas is a very poor strategy. If you don't think they are valid, why not point out how your own ideas are superior?doctoremma wrote: »I will rely on the force of the law to protect my children from creationist psychological brainwashing. It's a kind of child abuse, when you think about it...
...and you will need to do a better job than your performance on this thread to date ... if you are not going to have a bunch of Creationist Children on your hands!!!:eek:
I don't rely on the law to 'protect' my children from other religious ideas ... in fact I actively encourage them to fully investigate other religions, including Atheism, themselves and come back to me with whatever they have discovered ... because, I know that when my back is turned, that is what they will probably do anyway ... that's what teenagers are like !!!
Indeed, in the era of the worldwide web they don't even have to leave their bedroom to do so.
Wiile you are busy ensuring that the Laws of England ensures that your children are taught only Evolutionist myths at school ... they may be at home surfing Creation Science websites ... and, like I did, getting Saved on some Christian website!!!!
I have no wish to worry you, but unless you lock your children in a wardrobe, and never let them near a computer, this is a distinct possibility!!!:D
I am equally confident that my worldview will stand up to any fair criticism levelled at it!!!
Finally, I don't think that it is helpful to refer to Christians passing on their faith to their children as a form of child abuse. It trivialises a very serious issue (child abuse) and it does nothing for any other argument that you may wish to make. Any fair minded person would conclude that somebody who makes such an outrageous allegation should have everything else that they say 'taken with a very large grain of salt'!!!
The Christian Faith isn't child abuse ... when you really think about it ... it's actually Child Salvation!!!!:D
.0 -
Advertisement
-
SonOfPerdition wrote: »You could have used google to retrieve that information very easily, there's nothing being hidden about the musings on the evolutionary process before Darwin.
see aboutdarwin.com for details going all the way back to 520BC
sorry to spoil your expose :rolleyes:
Ah you're grand you didn't spoil anything. It's not that the theory has been mused over for a long time that was news to me, rather its the claim that Darwin's key idea's were based on someone else's papers and then once published he took all the credit for coming up with the theory. If that's true then that's pretty low don't you think? I will have to read the books to see what kind of argument these guys make, I will not believe a slanderous claim like this without hearing the arguments first, but you'd have to admit, that if it is true it's pretty despicable.0 -
SonOfPerdition wrote: »You could have used google to retrieve that information very easily, there's nothing being hidden about the musings on the evolutionary process before Darwin.
see [URL="[URL]http://www.aboutdarwin.com/literature/Pre_Dar.html"]aboutdarwin.com[/URL[/URL]] for details going all the way back to 520BC
sorry to spoil your expose :rolleyes:
Just reading your link there:
"Around 520 BC - Anaximander
The Greek philosopher, Anaximander of Miletus, wrote a text called "On Nature" in which he introduced an idea of evolution, stating that life started as slime in the oceans and eventually moved to drier places. He also brought up the idea that species evolved over time."
So J C was right? We did come from slime if evolution is true? :pac:0 -
Religion used to be used to explain lightning and what caused the sun to rise. Should we also remove those parts of the science curriculum?..if Atheism isn't a religion ... then they should stay out of essentially religious questions like the 'origins' issue.
I absolutely agree that all scientifically valid explanations for the origins of life should be taught. Currently the only one is evolution because "God did it" is not a scientifically valid explanation any more than the "invisible pixies pulling you down" theory of gravity. Even if both of those explanations do turn out to be right they still have no place in the science class because there is no way to test for them. Arguments against evolution do not constitute arguments for "the christian god did it"....if they want to have their 'origins' story recognised in school curricula ... then they need to allow other scientifically valid 'origins' explantions to ALSO be presented in a balanced and fair manner!!!0 -
...Touche!!!doctoremma wrote: »I think it's unfortunate that a scientifically-sound and progressive theory contradicts your faith but would politely suggest that the onus is not on the scientific (or wider) community to protect your faith from the facts of reality.
...the reverse is actually the case ... you are the one that wants to forcibly indoctinate my children with a one-side account ot a one-sided origins theory that has little or no scientific or ligical validity!!!doctoremma wrote: »You are not a true liberal. You do not stand up for freedom of speech. You wish to censor the information that your children and my children can access in their education.
...and you also want to hide your own children in some kind of virtual 'cocoon' away from all alternative theories!!!!
... I am a TRUE liberal ... I have no problem with Evolution being taught to my children AS LONG AS its (very obvious) limitations ... and the alternative Theories that are currently held by other Eminent Conventionally Qualified Scientists on the 'origins issue' ... are ALSO taught!!!
...the courtrooms in a free country SHOULD recognise the freedom of people to believe what they wish ... and to communicate freely with each other ... and any day that the legal system doesn't recognise these freedoms ... people will simply use their God-given intellect to think for themselves ANYWAY!!!:eek:doctoremma wrote: »And you still don't understand the concept that even if you were to completely disprove evolutionary theory, it does not say anything about the truth of alternative theories. Nothing is considered as approaching true until there is evidence for it. You can tear evolution apart until there is nothing left to support it, but that still won't mean that god dunnit. That's basic logic, one that applies in the editorial offices of Nature to the courtrooms of a free country.
You forget that Humans are eternal spirit beings made in the image and likeness of God ... and NOBODY can force us to believe something like materialistic evolution ... which is patently ridiculous!!!0 -
Religion used to be used to explain lightning and what caused the sun to rise.
Can yo give us an example of any religion which explains why the sun rises and why lighning strikes? Do you have scriptures form any religion that states these things specifically and what causes they give for their happenings?I absolutely agree that all scientifically valid explanations for the origins of life should be taught. Currently the only one is evolution because "God did it" is not a scientifically valid explanation any more than the "invisible pixies pulling you down" theory of gravity. Even if both of those explanations do turn out to be right they still have no place in the science class because there is no way to test for them. Arguments against evolution do not constitute arguments for "the christian god did it".
Surely the inference to intelligent design is present in how DNA is replicated? Do you seriously think that this complexity can come about without any kind of intelligence either starting it or guiding it? Whether its scientifically proven to be the God of the Bible is a whole different debate but by just observing how DNA replicates aren't scientists at least rational to conclude that it at least infers design? No? No even the slightest possibility???0 -
Advertisement
-
...some of the 'nature worshipping' forerunners of todays Atheism may have believed such things ... but Saved Christians have never believed such stuff!!Religion used to be used to explain lightning and what caused the sun to rise. Should we also remove those parts of the science curriculum?
....how very illiberal and irrational of you!!!I absolutely agree that all scientifically valid explanations for the origins of life should be taught. Currently the only one is evolution because "God did it" is not a scientifically valid explanation any more than the "invisible pixies pulling you down" theory of gravity. Even if both of those explanations do turn out to be right they still have no place in the science class because there is no way to test for them. Arguments against evolution do not constitute arguments for "the christian god did it".
... I have news for you ... the game is up ... and 'the writing is on the wall' ... for Atheism ... and it is spelling ID !!!!:eek::):D0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Can yo give us an example of any religion which explains why the sun rises and why lighning strikes? Do you have scriptures form any religion that states these things specifically and what causes they give for their happenings?
The Greeks and Romans had sun gods and the Thor is the Norse god of thunder. The point is that just because a religion thinks it has an answer to a question doesn't mean that science should stay away from that area
Yes I do because that's what every single scrap of evidence that has ever been found suggests. But even if we couldn't explain the complexity of life, the argument of "I don't know so it must be god" is not science, it's a declaration of ignorance and an invoking of the supernatural for some easy answers. It's the god of the gapsSoul Winner wrote: »Surely the inference to intelligent design is present in how DNA is replicated? Do you seriously think that this complexity can come about without any kind of intelligence either starting it or guiding it?Soul Winner wrote: »Whether its scientifically proven to be the God of the Bible is a whole different debate but by just observing how DNA replicates aren't scientists at least rational to conclude that it at least infers design? No? No even the slightest possibility???
It is a possibility, don't get me wrong, but there is no way to verify the hypothesis so it will always remain nothing more than a hypothesis. If we find something we can't explain it means simply that we can't explain it and nothing more. And the thing about this hypothesis is that the theory of evolution renders it completely unnecessary and if you understood it correctly you would see that. Yes god could have been involved somewhere along the line and he could have kicked the whole process off but his involvement in the complexity of life is superfluous. Invoking god just because we can't explain something is bad enough but you're invoking god to explain something that we already have an explanation for0 -
...some of the 'nature worshipping' forerunners of todays Atheism may have believed such things ... but Saved Christians have never believed such stuff!!
Ah so it's not religious discrimination you're against and you don't want equal time for all theories, you just want equal time for your theory. Right so0 -
....and I'm also right when I previously said that Evolution can be traced right back to Ancient Greece ... and some people say that it actually originated all the way back as far as Babel :eek:Soul Winner wrote: »Just reading your link there:
"Around 520 BC - Anaximander
The Greek philosopher, Anaximander of Miletus, wrote a text called "On Nature" in which he introduced an idea of evolution, stating that life started as slime in the oceans and eventually moved to drier places. He also brought up the idea that species evolved over time."
So J C was right? We did come from slime if evolution is true? :pac:0 -
-
It is a possibility, don't get me wrong, but there is no way to verify the hypothesis so it will always remain nothing more than a hypothesis. If we find something we can't explain it means simply that we can't explain it and nothing more. And the thing about this hypothesis is that the theory of evolution renders it completely unnecessary and if you understood it correctly you would see that. Yes god could have been involved somewhere along the line and he could have kicked the whole process off but his involvement in the complexity of life is superfluous. Invoking god just because we can't explain something is bad enough but you're invoking god to explain something that we already have an explanation for
But if it is not intelligently designed and/or guided then what else can it be but a chance accidental and purposeless happening? Those are the only choices and the evidence does not point to the latter I'm sorry. Now that does not mean that it automatically points to the Christian God even though I believe that He is the causer and sustainer of all life in a theological sense, but be that as it may, the evidence alone points to intelligence. That intelligence does not need to be explained in order for the inference that intelligence must be involved to stand. What the intelligence ends up being can be debated ad infinitum but there is intelligence, that is the only other option if accidental and purposeless processes are ruled out, and the evidence does rule these out. Survival is a purpose, but blind natural processes would not see that as being important if all it is is a blind, natural and purposeless process.0 -
...look, there are polystrate fossil trees that run up through over 30 metres of rock layers that supposedly took tens of millions of years to lay down
WHERE? Give me the example of the dating of them and the contradictory radiometric dating from PUBLISHED scientific data.... yet the tops of the trees are just as perfectly preserved as the bottoms ... thereby indicating RAPID sedimentation ... completely invalidating the radiological methods used to date these and every other rock!!!
Examples? sources? and care to demonstrate how this invalidat4es radiometric dating?...and WHERE do you think that ALL of the Calcium Carbonate that is present in the vast Limestone rocks of the world came from?
From inside stars. there is a famous paper by Burbridge and his wife and fred Hoyle and Fowler explaining stellar neucleosynthesis of the periodic table called b squared F H.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C2%B2FH
http://rmp.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v29/i4/p547_1
That's where the carbon and calcium and oxygen in Calcium carbonate originated.
By the way the stars take millions of years to manufacture such mass of elements.... and where did the Calcium Carbonate that is cementing every other sedimentary rock also came from?
Asked and answered.... you DID say "Only a few Biblical fundamentalists still hold the unscientific belief like the Earth not moving or being flat..."
Yes i did and i stand by that.... so you are claiming it to be a belief currently held by Christians!!!!
By fundamentalist Biblical christians. Not by MOST or by mainstream Christians. Just as
Creation Science isn't accepted by most Christians but is by Biblical fundamentalists. But you will no doubt redefine "Christian" not to me the two billion or so christians but to mean YOUR "saved" few thousands fundamentalists I suppose?...anyway, where does the Bible say that the Earth is Flat ... or not orbiting the Sun?
Referred to several times in this thread.
Modern geocentrism is the belief held by some extant groups that Earth is the center of the universe as described by classical geocentric models. This belief is often based on Biblical verses and is most common among American Protestants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism#Biblical_references...it was a pity that the Popes didn't take this information on board ... instead of taking the Greek Geocentric story of both Aristotle and Ptolemy at face value ... and embarsssing themselves for several hundred years as a result!!!
Actually you are WRONG about that! The Inquisition DID take the information on board. Galileos fight was with academics not Popes! the Holy Inquisition were aware of Thyco's system and knew galileo was proposing a false dichotomy. but let me ask you based on naked eye observation even today - how would you prove the
Earth moves or goes around the Sun?...he was right on both counts ... that the Earth orbited the Sun ... and God did it!!:)
Galileo was NOT CONVICTED of heresy. He was convicted od suspiction of minor heresies. The heresies being geokeneticism and heliocentrism.... it would appear so.
... when do you think that a person gets a soul ... and do you still believe in the Medieval idea that female foetuses get their souls much later than male ones????
But you are saying that a fertilised egg even in a freezer therefore should derive ALL the human rights that a newborn child has for example? so how would you deal with adopting an egg or inheritance of title or property or shares? what if the egg was frozen for a century. How would you deal with a tontine? Or what about the debt owed by a 200 year old egg when it is implanted and born? There are all sorts of implications?The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle argued ...
Irrelevant, but the theological position of most Christians AFAIK is this : that some stage AFTER conception a soul comes into the body. The only way of being 100 percent certain that you are correct in it being human is to take time zero - the moment of conception. This is not to say a fertilised egg is a human being but it is the point after which you cant be sure. Other legal opinion says six weeks or eight or even up to 26 weeks.For Christians, the soul had a different meaning and purpose. Some theologians placed ensoulment, or the acquisition of a God-given immortal soul, at conception.
Ihave referred to the position above.Yet from the late Middle Ages the Aristotelian view dominated - especially within the Roman Catholic Church - which deferred to the Pagan Aristotle on all matters philosophical ... a bit like they now appear to be deferring to the Atheist Darwin on all things Evolutionary!!!:eek:
that is a simplistic analysis. Aquinas adopted Greek rationality into Christianity. it was the Socratic/Platonic/Aristotlean REASONING that became the rational basis for Christianity, just as it became the basis of science. this is not to say that science and religion insisted Aristotle was always right just that God and science was founded in rationality....so what have they come up with?
The point was not what have theologists come up with regarding science ethics etc. but that it is considered a field worthy devoting their effort to....these are all side issues ... the central issue is the principle that all Humans have inaleinable rights because they are Human ... once that principle is lost almost ANY horror becomes possible.
WHAT rights are inalienable? When is someone human? what additional rights can be given, taken away or become inalienable when given? That is the point I was making....you are confusing capacity with rights. Obviously how the rights are exercised depends on the capacity of the individual ... but the rights should exist and be honoured universally.
In fact you are wrong when you say that capacity may not be present when rights always are. Sometimes it may be the other way around in fact.
A eighteen year old could have the capacity to drink alcohol or to vote but not have the right to do so!...and BTW age related rules started out to protect and vindicate young peoples rights by preventing their exploitation by less scrupulous adults.
Now you are looking for justifications behind why such laws exist. I was not justifying them or saying they wqere wrong i was just pointing to the fact that they do exist and are DIFFERENT for different people. they are not UNIVERSAL! Different countries have different laws. Of course there are Christian anarchists and others who would claim no law at all is needed. But even if you just say we shouold all operate according to Bible law then you will have all sorts of loopy interpretations for example a tiny minority who might claim homosexuals and people who curse their parents should be stoned to death or others like your tiny minority who claim that the Universe must be no more than 6000 years old. Why should they have their beliefs enforced equally over the vast majority of humanity?0 -
...I wasn't talking about the 'oldest living things' ... I was talking about the length of time that it took 'Pondkind' to supposedly evolve into 'Mankind'.
If you are asking about scientific data you should be using clear terminology. "muck to man" or "pondkind" are not a strictly defined term in scientific papers. If you use vague terms you may expect vague time scales. however we are still in geological time periods i.e. millions to thousands of millions of years and NOT in the "all happened in the last 6,000 years" interpretation you are defending!The production of 'Pondkind', in the first place is reckoned by the Evolutionists to be a long-drawn out (and totally separate) process over billions of years called 'Abiogenesis'.
Actually abiogenesis - the spontaneous arrival or "creation" of life - could be interpreted to fit with the Bible. As could the big Bang or the existence of conscience or souls.Again, the time periods suggested vary dramatically, but you are unlikely to draw any 'flack' from Evolutionists once you follow their convention of adding the word 'billion' to any number that you choose to use ... BTW pick a number between 1 and 5 ... and you will generally be OK!!!
No you would be wrong here! I have already given you the data! Dating techniques would NOT reckon there was no life on earth over a billion years ago and it only came about then.0 -
Eating sausages is not a required part of science teaching. Evolution is!...it would be discrimination to require all pupils and teachers to eat sausages ... and then sack/expel/not employ any Jews who refused to do so, because it is an affront to their religion to do so.
By the way I don't accept strict Darwinian evolution and I would expect many scientists would agree with me. i like Stephen Gould's idea of punctuated evolution in which there is gradual evolution in geological time then catastrophes occur and rapid evolution happens filling the gaps made by mass species extinction.That was the kind of 'low grade' behaviour that the Nazis did to the Jews to completely demoralise them!!!
sacking a teacher for being a religious nutter in science class isn't naziism. forcing all teachers to eat sausages is!...it is a similar affront to a Saved Christian (or indeed an Orthodox Jew) to ask them to have their children forcibly indoctrinated with the core beliefs of Atheism dressed up as Darwinism being delivered in school to their children.
You just KEEP DOING THIS! Evolution isn't necessarily atheistic! Darwin was a believer! The vast majority of christians are happy to accept evolution and also believe in God.It is also naked discrimination to sack a Christian teacher who merely mentions the word ID within a science class
Not really! If they teach ANY alternative to the accepted syllabus in ANY subject that is grounds for sacking them. It is probably fine for a teacher to say "I don't believe in any of this but I'm going to teach you all the science and show the evidence on which it is based" But the teacher would probably be crap if they didn't actually accept the reasoning involved and it is unlikely they would be involved in teaching anyway.... when ID should be fully covered by the science curriculum in the first place
Say you! and if the flying spaghetti monster and Allah and alien creation and so on say they should also have equal time what science will be taught?
snip more of the Evolution= atheism stuff...interestingly, I could say exactly the same thing about you ... and your right to indoctrinate my children with your scientifically invalid ideas!!!
It is the right of the vast majority in a democracy to insist that taxes and public money are spent on what they want and not on what a tiny minority want. Just as it is your right to educate your kids at home or send them to another fundy school....so we either leave our respectve children alone on this one ... or we agree a common and balanced curriculum that presents our two worldviews and the scientific evidence that supports each worldview.
NO! We either accept science or we allow ALL worldviews have equal time. Satinists astrologers, flying spaghetti monster, aliens created life, pagan creation etc.
People prefer to have just the rational science in science class.... a completely invalid caricature!!!. The key issue isn't the calibration of the measuring device ... it is the underlying assumption that what is being measured validly reflects the age of the rock being evaluated.
Showing the distinction between validity and reliability does not invalidate the validity of dating methodology.All radiometric dating is seriously flawed when it comes to establishing the age of rocks ... and I have given some of the reasons why this has been PROVEN to be the case here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64571288&postcount=21198
How has that proven radiometric dating wrong? that post provides NOTHING WHATSOVER about radiometric dating being wrong!
By the way I also pointed to crater impact populations, dendrochronology, the geological column, chrons in the magnetic field. All five methods can be used and can confirm independently. Radiometric dating can also be used in human history.0 -
In relation to the geocentricity or not of the earth depicted in Biblical and Apocryphal writings, where is the evidence that what is purported to be said in these documents is the view that the earth is the physical central point of the universe? From the perspectives of the observers the sun rises, what else would you have them say? We still say that the sun rises today even though we know it doesn't, big deal. Does the earth's geocentric position in the Bible really relate to a physical position in space? Why not the attention center? Is Dáil Éreann the physical center of the country? No. But it is the center of power and decision making. Why can't the same view inferred in the Bible in relation to the earth be likewise? It is just the center of attention not the physical center of the universe.0
-
Advertisement
-
...are Roman Catholics now going to leave their children to the 'tender mercies' of Atheists and their 'fellow travellers' ... just like they unquestioningly entrusted them to priests and religious in the past?
First of all most abuse was not committed by clergy even less by RC clergy.
You find about one percent of RC priests were abusers. when you go to say swimming instructors or non clergy the percentage is higher. While this does not justify it it does point out that the media is focusing on clerical abuse. They may see this as justified because clergy had a particular function. That FACTS are however that other groups had higher levels of abuse.
Second, EVOLUTION is NOT opposed to Christianity! It is only opposed to YOUR view of Christianity which is that of a tiny minority of Christians!
Lastly people in Ireland today are happy to have schools run by Clergy or with a Christian ethos and in all those schools EVOLUTION is taught in science class!... I think not ... but I could be wrong!!!
You are wrong!0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Ah you're grand you didn't spoil anything. It's not that the theory has been mused over for a long time that was news to me, rather its the claim that Darwin's key idea's were based on someone else's papers and then once published he took all the credit for coming up with the theory. If that's true then that's pretty low don't you think? I will have to read the books to see what kind of argument these guys make, I will not believe a slanderous claim like this without hearing the arguments first, but you'd have to admit, that if it is true it's pretty despicable.
Yep it probably is. so what? Do you think by attacking the person it invalidates the theory of Evolution? It doesn't!0 -
Indeed, I would go much further than you, and I would want my children to be taught a balanced science curriculum that fairly addresses the various origins theories, including evolution and Creation Science...and that is actually what has occurred with my children.
And it is what is taught in Roman Catholic Ireland. But not in science class!Finally, I don't think that it is helpful to refer to Christians passing on their faith to their children as a form of child abuse.
Most Christians accept evolution. You want to define all Christians as Biblical creationists
they arent! Evolution isn't anti Christ.The Christian Faith isn't child abuse ... when you really think about it ... it's actually Child Salvation!!!!:D
I rind that rich coming from someone who critiqued Catholic clergy being involved in education in Ireland in the past as being child abusers!0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »In relation to the geocentricity or not of the earth depicted in Biblical and Apocryphal writings, where is the evidence that what is purported to be said in these documents is the view that the earth is the physical central point of the universe? From the perspectives of the observers the sun rises, what else would you have them say? We still say that the sun rises today even though we know it doesn't, big deal. Does the earth's geocentric position in the Bible really relate to a physical position in space? Why not the attention center? Is Dáil Éreann the physical center of the country? No. But it is the center of power and decision making. Why can't the same view inferred in the Bible in relation to the earth be likewise? It is just the center of attention not the physical center of the universe.
But now you are interpreting "centre" to mean "not the actual positional centre" ! Why then can't you interpret "year" or "day" to be "not an actual measured 24 hour or 365 days but a very long time like billions of years"?
In fact the second postulate of relativity - equivalence principle- coupled with the two assumptions of cosmology
- homogeneity and isotropism would sit happily with the Earth being the centre of the universe - or anywhere else also being the center for that matter.0 -
-
But now you are interpreting "centre" to mean "not the actual positional centre" ! Why then can't you interpret "year" or "day" to be "not an actual measured 24 hour or 365 days but a very long time like billions of years"?
Hey I do. There's many a post where I say that the Bible never dates the earth as being 6000 years old. You mustn't have read them. I said it many times, there is potentially a vast gulf of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Who knows how much time elapsed between those two verses?
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth became a waste and a desolation."
What made the earth to become a waste and a desolation? It can only be speculated at.In fact the second postulate of relativity - equivalence principle- coupled with the two assumptions of cosmology
- homogeneity and isotropism would sit happily with the Earth being the centre of the universe - or anywhere else also being the center for that matter.
I wasn't arguing against that. I was asking the question: Where in the Bible or in any other Apocryphal text does it suggest that the earth is the physical centre of the universe?0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Hell no. I never said that. But what would it say for the character of Darwin if it was true? :eek:
So what about the character of Darwin? what has his personal character to do with whether the theory is correct or not? Why does his character have anything to do with that?0 -
So what about the character of Darwin? what has his personal character to do with whether the theory is correct or not? Why does his character have anything to do with that?
Well for lay people like me for instance I was always under the impression that it was Darwin who came up with the concept of Natural Selection. But if I find out that he merely stole the idea from someone else, well that sort of throws a spanner into the works in terms of me respecting such a person as an orignial thinker. But even if that does turn out to be the case that does not mean that I'll use that as a means to attack the theory itself. So please stop trying to tar me with that brush.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Well for lay people like me for instance I was always under the impression that it was Darwin who came up with the concept of Natural Selection. But if I find out that he merely stole the idea from someone else, well that sort of throws a spanner into the works in terms of me respecting such a person as an orignial thinker. But even if that does turn out to be the case that does not mean that I'll use that as a means to attack the theory itself. So please stop trying to tar me with that brush.
Einstein didn't come up with the concept of relativity. Galileo referred quire a lot to relative motion and the concept was probably there since the ancient Greeks. Aristotle however argued that is you fire an arrow straight up in the air it comes straight back down and doesn't "fly off" as the Earth rotates by 100 miles an hour beneath it. Nor is there a "great wind" caused by the Earth turning beneath the atmosphere. They are reasonable arguments.
JC probably however didnt read Galileo's counter arguments. In fact very few people have read "On the two world systems " by Galileo or Darwins original work.
By the way, I would argue that if you read his notes the way you can't say Darwin wasn't a fine writer and scientist. Similarly Newton might have robbed Hooke's idea of elipses for planetary orbits. I don't believe he did but he did blackball Hooke in a very nasty way.0 -
Advertisement
-
Einstein didn't come up with the concept of relativity. Galileo referred quire a lot to relative motion and the concept was probably there since the ancient Greeks. Aristotle however argued that is you fire an arrow straight up in the air it comes straight back down and doesn't "fly off" as the Earth rotates by 100 miles an hour beneath it. Nor is there a "great wind" caused by the Earth turning beneath the atmosphere. They are reasonable arguments.
JC probably however didnt read Galileo's counter arguments. In fact very few people have read "On the two world systems " by Galileo or Darwins original work.
By the way, I would argue that if you read his notes the way you can't say Darwin wasn't a fine writer and scientist. Similarly Newton might have robbed Hooke's idea of elipses for planetary orbits. I don't believe he did but he did blackball Hooke in a very nasty way.
What does it matter? Darwin was a fine writer. So what? Does the fact that he was a fine writer make him immune to the fact that he was a plagiarizer, if he was one? No, I don't think so.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement