The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Keylem

Dissent From Darwinism.
It deserves to be heard.

"Life as revealed by new technologies is more complicated than the Darwinian viewpoint anticipated. Thus evolutionary theory, which was considered to be a key foundation of biology in 1959, today has a more peripheral role. … modern science makes it possible to be a scientifically informed doubter of Darwinian theories of evolution."Dr. Roland Hirsch, Chemistry

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

http://www.discovery.org/csc/

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Why God never got tenure

---

1. He had only one major publication.
2. It was written in Aramaic, not in English.
3. It has no references.
4. It wasn't even published in a refereed journal.
5. There are serious doubts he wrote it himself.
6. It may be true that he created the world, but what has he done since
then?
7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
8. The Scientific community has had a hard time replicating his results.
9. He unlawfully performed not only Animal, but *Human* testing.
10. When one experiment went awry, he tried to cover it by drowning his
subjects.
11. When subjects didn't behave as predicted, he deleted them from
the sample.
12. He rarely came to class, just told his students to read the book.
13. Some say he had his son to teach the class.
14. He expelled his first two students for learning.
15. Although there were only 10 requirements, most of his students
failed his tests.
16. His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountain top.

Lol at 13

And points 1, 3, 4 and 5 prove that God has a few things in common with Charles Darwin too. :pac: Re point 5, I'm not one who believes Charles Darwin didn't write OTOoS himself but he did steal lots of his ideas from fellow scientists. Which makes him a Fraud too boot.

Zombrex

Keylem wrote: »

It deserves to be heard.

Heard!?! Man alive they never shut up about it. :P

Morbert

Keylem wrote: »

Dissent From Darwinism.
It deserves to be heard.

"Life as revealed by new technologies is more complicated than the Darwinian viewpoint anticipated. Thus evolutionary theory, which was considered to be a key foundation of biology in 1959, today has a more peripheral role. … modern science makes it possible to be a scientifically informed doubter of Darwinian theories of evolution."Dr. Roland Hirsch, Chemistry

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

http://www.discovery.org/csc/

It would be better if you actually discussed the topics at hand. You are spamming the thread if you simply ignore our responses.

Needless to say, the scientific community holds that Dr. Hirsch is wrong, and research papers from various journals, such as the journal of Molecular Evolution, reflect this.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

And points 1, 3, 4 and 5 prove that God has a few things in common with Charles Darwin too. :pac: Re point 5, I'm not one who believes Charles Darwin didn't write OToOS himself but he did steal lots of his ideas from fellow scientists. Which makes him a Fraud too boot.

Good think he never claimed to be God then, isn't it

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Good think he never claimed to be God then, isn't it

So I presume you now agree that Jesus made such a claim? I thought it became popular amongst atheists that He never made such a claim?

Robert ninja

@Soul Winner

There's no 'stealing' research in science per say(unless you robbed a science journal from some dude's house). That's what science is all about, we use what we currently know and consider the theories that are floating around and then pose our own. It's not like there's patents on theories or that Darwin's family now get royalties everytime evolution is mentioned somewhere.

@Keylem

That's obvious. That applies to every scientific theory we have and also... there's boat loads of new information we have today that has changed the theory of evolution so much that Darwin would be WTFing if he were still alive. Your post is pretty much saying that we can scrutinise scientific theories. This is exactly the reason why science is strong and religions are weak.

Soul Winner

Robert ninja wrote: »

@Soul Winner

There's no 'stealing' research in science per say(unless you robbed a science journal from some dude's house). That's what science is all about, we use what we currently know and consider the theories that are floating around and then pose our own. It's not like there's patents on theories or that Darwin's family now get royalties everytime evolution is mentioned somewhere.

So you don't agree that plagiarizing someone else’s ideas and passing them off as your own is being fraudulent? Apparently this is what Charles Darwin did on Russell Wallace?

Keylem

Morbert wrote: »

It would be better if you actually discussed the topics at hand. You are spamming the thread if you simply ignore our responses.

Needless to say, the scientific community holds that Dr. Hirsch is wrong, and research papers from various journals, such as the journal of Molecular Evolution, reflect this.

I am not spamming the thread. I am not qualified to discuss science, so I post links to those who are.

Here's another link!

http://www.idvolution.org/

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

So I presume you now agree that Jesus made such a claim?

That would seem to be the most likely explanation. It did allow him to live supported by rich women after all. Isn't that what most cult leaders seek

Soul Winner wrote: »

I thought it became popular amongst atheists that He never made such a claim?

I think you are confusing Atheists with Muslims

Robert ninja

Soul Winner wrote: »

So you don't agree that plagiarizing someone else’s ideas and passing them off as your own is being fraudulent?

I consider it wrong if someone purposefully and consciously replicates and idea from someone else to make a profit. Science is about understanding reality... there's nothing you can really conjure out of nothing in your mind. All your thoughts and ideas and theories about the universe come from an understanding of other people's ideas, creations and theories about the universe. Information is serial. It could have been that many scientists, famours or not, have read other scientists' work and then came to their own conclusions which are very similar to the source they had just gotten it from. It doesn't make them think they're stealing, though.

Secondly, I don't see why this even has any relevance on science or creationism. Darwin could've been jack the ****ing ripper and stolen ALL his research directly from other people and the theories would still be valid.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

So you don't agree that plagiarizing someone else’s ideas and passing them off as your own is being fraudulent? Apparently this is what Charles Darwin did on Russell Wallace?

Apparently to whom exactly?

Robert ninja

Keylem wrote: »

I am not spamming the thread. I am not qualified to discuss science, so I post links to those who are.

Here's another link!

http://www.idvolution.org/

Actually what you're doing is close to spamming. A forum is a place for social interraction and discussion of ideas and what not. It's not a place to just keep posting link to things you don't know about. Doing it occasionally to cite sources and so on is totally understandable but if your only responce to cirticism is posting links then you should relax. There's an entire thread dedicated to that kind of stuff, anyway.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055623720

Christian Resources. You might like some of the links in there.

Soul Winner

Robert ninja wrote: »

I consider it wrong if someone purposefully and consciously replicates and idea from someone else to make a profit. Science is about understanding reality... there's nothing you can really conjure out of nothing in your mind. All your thoughts and ideas and theories about the universe come from an understanding of other people's ideas, creations and theories about the universe. Information is serial. It could have been that many scientists, famours or not, have read other scientists' work and then came to their own conclusions which are very similar to the source they had just gotten it from. It doesn't make them think they're stealing, though.

Secondly, I don't see why this even has any relevance on science or creationism. Darwin could've been jack the ****ing ripper and stolen ALL his research directly from other people and the theories would still be valid.

So once the theory gets out it doesn't really matter if the one who is publishing it in their own name turns out to be a rapist and a murderer who didn't actually come up with the theory but stole it from someone else? WOW! I'd say leave the theory alone, if its a valid theory then fine, but give credit for the theory to where it should go and expose (or in this analogy - jail) the fraud.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Apparently to whom exactly?

These guys:

http://www.amazon.com/Delicate-Arrangement-Strange-Charles-Wallace/dp/081290883X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1303140412&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Just-Before-Origin-Wallaces-Evolution/dp/1583481117/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1303147824&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Alfred-Russel-Wallace-Peter-Raby/dp/0691102406/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303140551&sr=1-1-spell

http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Conspiracy-Origins-Scientific-Crime/dp/0952310961/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1303140614&sr=1-1


I'm not saying they are right or wrong but usually when there is smoke in the woods its because there is a fire. My own opinion is that Charles Darwin was stuck in a rut and had done a lot of his own research but the idea of Natrual Selection came from reading Wallace's ideas. But heck who knows, right?

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

That would seem to be the most likely explanation. It did allow him to live supported by rich women after all. Isn't that what most cult leaders seek

Look, if Jesus was a fraud I want to know about it. But casting aspersions hardly helps now does it?

Wicknight wrote: »

I think you are confusing Atheists with Muslims

Not at all, there are many atheists who don't think there are good grounds for believing that Jesus claimed to be God. I thought this was common knowledge??

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

So you don't agree that plagiarizing someone else’s ideas and passing them off as your own is being fraudulent? Apparently this is what Charles Darwin did on Russell Wallace?

Galileo didn't invent the telescope; when people who believe that Galileo did invent the telescope find out that he didn't, should they deny the existence of the telescope?

Alexander Graham Bell probably didn't invent the telephone and yet - there are telephones.

Attacking Darwin does not undermine science. It may well be that Darwin was driven by politics and it is likely that he at least tried to dishonorably exclude other people's valid contributions where they opposed him but science is bigger than the man.

Do you know that there are people that believe Einstein was wrong in some of his assertions?

The story of life and evolution may have its beginnings in a time before the existence of Earth. For the most part, life-mechanisms consist of the lighter elements which have be around for almost as long as the universe has.

Suppose that certain molecules that formed in the coldness of space were to be deposited on Earth where they were combined with molecules formed in the extreme heat of Earth's creation; is it unthinkable that some combinations resulted in a 'symbiotic' relationship between 'heat-loving' and 'cold-loving' molecules?

A relationship between an exothermic reaction and an endothermic reaction could moderate the overall behaviour of the system.

Darwin probably never considered such things but whether or not Darwin was of questionable character, his theory has led to the consideration of such things.

Darwin may have had a negative effect on Wallace but science has profited from Darwinian theory.

Soul Winner

himnextdoor wrote: »

Galileo didn't invent the telescope; when people who believe that Galileo did invent the telescope find out that he didn't, should they deny the existence of the telescope?

No, they should just stop saying that Galileo invented the telescope.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Attacking Darwin does not undermine science.

I know. Nobody is attacking science here

himnextdoor wrote: »

It may well be that Darwin was driven by politics and it is likely that he at least tried to dishonorably exclude other people's valid contributions where they opposed him but science is bigger than the man.

Science is bigger than the man? You mean the ends justifies the means? What ever happened to honour, respect and honesty?

himnextdoor wrote: »

Do you know that there are people that believe Einstein was wrong in some of his assertions?

Yes, but being wrong is one thing, stealing is another.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Darwin probably never considered such things but whether or not Darwin was of questionable character, his theory has led to the consideration of such things.

This is the point though, was it his theory? If not then why keep crediting him with it? This has nothing to do with the theory itself, we can still have that and enjoy it for what it is but if the case is strong against Darwin actually coming up with the theory then why should we call it Darwinian theory?

himnextdoor wrote: »

Darwin may have had a negative effect on Wallace but science has profited from Darwinian theory.

That's if it was in fact Darwinian theory though. Effectively what your saying is that even if it wasn't a Darwinian theory then we have profited from Darwinian theory. HUH???

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

No, they should just stop saying that Galileo invented the telescope.

I know. Nobody is attacking science here

Science is bigger than the man? You mean the ends justifies the means? What ever happened to honour, respect and honesty?

Yes, but being wrong is one thing, stealing is another.

This is the point though, was it his theory? If not then why keep crediting him with it? This has nothing to do with the theory itself, we can still have that and enjoy it for what it is but if the case is strong against Darwin actually coming up with the theory then why should we call it Darwinian theory?

That's if it was in fact Darwinian theory though. Effectively what your saying is that even if it wasn't a Darwinian theory then we have profited from Darwinian theory. HUH???

I see; if the term 'Darwinian theory' was altered in order to put right a historical wrong then you would be an evolutionist?

Soul Winner

himnextdoor wrote: »

I see; if the term 'Darwinian theory' was altered in order to put right a historical wrong then you would be an evolutionist?

Now you're just being silly, of course not. That's like saying that I'd become a Muslim if I found out that Muslims were right about Jesus. That He wasn't the Son of God and that He did not die for my sins. That might stop me being a Christian but not necessarily become a Muslim.

I'd be a proponent of the theory if I agreed that it did what said on the tin. I don't think it does but that's neither here nor there. But either way, historical wrongs should be righted whenever and wherever they can be.

Robert ninja

Well if you're agreeing that no matter who came up with the theory first effects the truth of it, and that you're agreeing no matter how good or bad Darwin was effects the truth of it, then we're all in agreement there and case closed I guess.

darjeeling

Another year on, and the same old stuff.

Feb 2010:

darjeeling wrote: »

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.

Curators and students of Darwin's notebooks and manuscripts tell us that he had developed a theory of evolution through natural selection around 1838, not long after his return from the Beagle voyage, and had produced a substantial book draft by around 1844. However, he held back publishing until 1858, when his correspondence with Wallace impelled him to act so as not to be scooped.

Darwin's 'Origin', published in 1859, was much more substantial than the essay Wallace had sent to Darwin the previous year. Knowing that the idea of evolution through natural selection would be controversial, Darwin had sought to collate evidence from many different fields of natural history, and to build this evidence into a very detailed and persuasive argument.

Darwin's work wasn't limited to evolution. He figured out how coral atolls form, and spent years on a comprehensive study of barnacles. His last book was a summation of his years of work on earthworms; Darwin was keen to ensure he had published on these creatures, as he put it, "before joining them".

And 2011:

Soul Winner wrote: »

Wicknight wrote: »

Why God never got tenure

---

1. He had only one major publication.
2. It was written in Aramaic, not in English.
3. It has no references.
4. It wasn't even published in a refereed journal.
5. There are serious doubts he wrote it himself.
[...]

And points 1, 3, 4 and 5 prove that God has a few things in common with Charles Darwin too. :pac: Re point 5, I'm not one who believes Charles Darwin didn't write OTOoS himself but he did steal lots of his ideas from fellow scientists. Which makes him a Fraud too boot.

Round and round and round we go.

Soul Winner

Robert ninja wrote: »

Well if you're agreeing that no matter who came up with the theory first effects the truth of it,

Assuming that it is true then no it makes no difference TO THE THEORY whoever claims to have come up with it. But when someone is being venerated for coming up with the theory who didn't actually come up with the theory then why keep saying that he did come up with it?

Robert ninja wrote: »

and that you're agreeing no matter how good or bad Darwin was effects the truth of it, then we're all in agreement there and case closed I guess.

I didn't start out having a dig at the theory itself, I made that very clear.

Soul Winner

darjeeling wrote: »

Another year on, and the same old stuff.

Feb 2010:



And 2011:


Round and round and round we go.

And why not?

darjeeling

Soul Winner wrote: »

And why not?

Fair enough - why not ignore all other posts and just keep posting the same baseless opinions?

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'd be a proponent of the theory if I agreed that it did what said on the tin.

Could you give just one example of what the Theory of Evolution says 'on the tin' that you disagree with?

Robert ninja

Honestly, I think you're back-pedalling. But... if you're not... and all you're posting about is justice to history then you're off topic and in the wrong thread. Hell, you're in the wrong forum possibly. If you really have a problem with this false-credit, go the the science forum and see if you can get a good conversation started there about it. Until then, for clarity and to avoid confusion, people are still going to refer to Darwin at times and since it doesn't matter if it was Darwin or not, then it doesn't effect any of the points being made at either side of the table.

Soul Winner

himnextdoor wrote: »

Could you give just one example of what the Theory of Evolution says 'on the tin' that you disagree with?

Natural selection acting on random mutations. That enough?

Soul Winner

Robert ninja wrote: »

Honestly, I think you're back-pedalling. But... if you're not... and all you're posting about is justice to history then you're off topic and in the wrong thread. Hell, you're in the wrong forum possibly. If you really have a problem with this false-credit, go the the science forum and see if you can get a good conversation started there about it. Until then, for clarity and to avoid confusion, people are still going to refer to Darwin at times and since it doesn't matter if it was Darwin or not, then it doesn't effect any of the points being made at either side of the table.

Eh, why couldn't you say this to Wicknight when he was making the joke about God? Is that what this thread is about oh ye of the 61 posts? I have 314 post in just this thread.

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

Now you're just being silly, of course not. That's like saying that I'd become a Muslim if I found out that Muslims were right about Jesus. That He wasn't the Son of God and that He did not die for my sins. That might stop me being a Christian but not necessarily become a Muslim.

If the Muslims are right about Jesus, that would seem like a pretty good reason to become a Muslim; wouldn't it be natural to 'prefer' their sources of information over the Christians'?