[_ Old Earth _] A question in PM

[zeke]

So far, because they have a religious predisposition to deny biology. Most of them aren't biologists, and that makes it easier, if they aren't familiar with the evidence.

Reality check---there are hundreds of credible scientists (some of whom are non-theists) who doubt Neo-Darwinism. Why? Because it is based on science mixed with pseudo-science. Try to keep up, please.

Are there credible scientists who doubt Neo-Darwinism?
Yes. Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines from such institutions as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Dartmouth, Rutgers, University of Chicago, Stanford and University of California at Berkeley. Many are also professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as Cambridge, Princeton, MIT, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, University of Georgia, Tulane, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, and Ben-Gurion University in Israel.

"Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection's ability to create complex biological systems - and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour." ~ Professor Colin Reeves, Dept of Mathematical Sciences Coventry University​

 

[jasoncran]

on that note. zeke pm me.

[video=youtube;BAbpfn9QgGA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAbpfn9QgGA[/video]

 

[Barbarian]

Reality check---classical Darwinism does not allow god-talk

Well, let's take a look:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species 1878

Surprise.

And many evolutionists, including those who most affected the modern theory, such as Theo Dobzhansky, Thomas Hunt Morgan, and others, were Christians.

Darwinism presents the notion that evolution happened via blind chance

They lied to you about that, too. Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't by chance.

Let's try to operate in reality - yes?

For that, you'd have to do some learning. Libraries are free. And I'm not impressed that 0.3% of people with doctorates in Biology doubt evolutionary theory.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

Well, let's take a look:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species 1878

Surprise.

And many evolutionists, including those who most affected the modern theory, such as Theo Dobzhansky, Thomas Hunt Morgan, and others, were Christians.



They lied to you about that, too. Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't by chance.



For that, you'd have to do some learning. Libraries are free. And I'm not impressed that 0.3% of people with doctorates in Biology doubt evolutionary theory.

Although I don't agree with Barbarians views, I do agree that the 0.3% is a valid argument. If we assume that life is based on numbers, then every religion is wrong because there's enough people out there to equally disagree with every religion.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian notes shared errors in the genetic code:
No way to explain that other than common ancestry.

Simplistic answers to a complex questions once again my friend .

It's a fact. Suggesting that God purposely put errors in his design is borderline blasphemous.

Even our TE friend, Francis Collins saw through your non-logic when he correctly noted that genetic similarity “alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor†because a designer could have “used successful design principles over and over again†(Collins, The Language of God).

But, as I just did, he pointed out that errors do demonstrate common descent. Why would God put the remains of telomeres precisely where they would be if a fusion occurred, unless it was a conscious attempt to deceive? No, your excuse won't work.

This clearly shows common descent, or that God is deceptive. You pick.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

Well, let's take a look:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species 1878

Surprise.

And many evolutionists, including those who most affected the modern theory, such as Theo Dobzhansky, Thomas Hunt Morgan, and others, were Christians.



They lied to you about that, too. Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't by chance.



For that, you'd have to do some learning. Libraries are free. And I'm not impressed that 0.3% of people with doctorates in Biology doubt evolutionary theory.

Also I'm not surprised that Darwin used God in the Origin of Species. He had no other way to explain how life might of come, had he written the Origin of Species a couple years ago he'd be agreeing with the Big Bang Theorists.

 

[Barbarian]

Although I don't agree with Barbarians views, I do agree that the 0.3% is a valid argument. If we assume that life is based on numbers, then every religion is wrong because there's enough people out there to equally disagree with every religion.

It doesn't mean that much to me; I'm just pointing out that "look how many scientists agree with me" is a big time loser for creationists. They should never use it.

 

[Barbarian]

Also I'm not surprised that Darwin used God in the Origin of Species. He had no other way to explain how life might of come,

Actually, his views changed back and forth on that issue, several times. In early and late mid-life, he was more inclined to see life as directly begun by God.

had he written the Origin of Species a couple years ago he'd be agreeing with the Big Bang Theorists.

The "Big Bang" (which wasn't actually a bang at all) began with light. Don't see any problems with that.

 

[jasoncran]

barb , when you say god used evolution. you do realise that puts you in the position of a prophet?if its refuted then you just made god a liar. creationist never claim how God created just that he did.now then, if you want to believe that comprimising Gods word in order to make evolution work then be my guest but I aint joining you.arguement by numbers is a logical fallacy. that was indirectly pointed out by zeke.

finally, would you listen to the pope or priest if he was agnostic? i wouldnt. darwin died and didnt repent so if this is so he aint in heaven but hell. plus im sure you wouldnt support his views on black and i can quote him

Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when he comes to his own marriage he rarely, or never, takes any such care. He is impelled by nearly the same motives as the lower animals, when they are left to their own free choice, though he is in so far superior to them that he highly values mental charms and virtues. On the other hand he is strongly attracted by mere wealth or rank. Yet he might by selection do something not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities. Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realised until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known. Everyone does good service, who aids towards this end. When the principles of breeding and inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man. The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring. Important as the struggle for existence has been and even still is, yet as far as the highest part of man's nature is concerned there are other agencies more important. For the moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction, religion, &c., than through natural selection; though to this latter agency may be safely attributed the social instincts, which afforded the basis for the development of the moral sense.

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-21.html

so you believe that barb? i only brought that back because of barb statement of a near worship of a man who did want to create a pure race.

no defects, no mental inforiority. we have done this in america,australia and also germany. lets not(at least) paint this man other then what he is.

 

[Barbarian]

barb , when you say god used evolution. you do realise that puts you in the position of a prophet?

No. I'm just observing the universe He made.

if its refuted then you just made god a liar.

Not true, and even if it was, it's a moot point, since we directly observe it.

creationist never claim how God created just that he did.

No. We get claims that He was a mere "designer", claims that he poofed organisms into existence, claims that He made a number of kinds from which hypersuperevolution produced all the present species in a few thousand years, and so on. And all demonstrably false, which by your account, makes Him a liar.

now then, if you want to believe that comprimising Gods word in order to make evolution work then be my guest

That's the point. Evolution lets you accept it as He said.

but I aint joining you.arguement by numbers is a logical fallacy. that was indirectly pointed out by zeke.

My point was that argument by numbers is a huge loser for creationists.

finally, would you listen to the pope or priest if he was agnostic?

About what? You do understand that Christians aren't compelled to believe everything a Pope says, don't you?

i wouldnt. darwin died and didnt repent so if this is so he aint in heaven but hell. plus im sure you wouldnt support his views on black and i can quote him

Like most Europeans of his time, he thought Europeans were superior to all other people. He differed from the creationists of his time by opposing slavery and insisting that rights and dignity were due all humans regardless of their state.

Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when he comes to his own marriage he rarely, or never, takes any such care. He is impelled by nearly the same motives as the lower animals, when they are left to their own free choice, though he is in so far superior to them that he highly values mental charms and virtues. On the other hand he is strongly attracted by mere wealth or rank. Yet he might by selection do something not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities. Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realised until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known. Everyone does good service, who aids towards this end. When the principles of breeding and inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man. The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring. Important as the struggle for existence has been and even still is, yet as far as the highest part of man's nature is concerned there are other agencies more important. For the moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction, religion, &c., than through natural selection; though to this latter agency may be safely attributed the social instincts, which afforded the basis for the development of the moral sense.

http://www.literature.org/authors/da...hapter-21.html

so you believe that barb?

No, and Darwin believed it only because he thought inheritance was like mixing paint. Mendel showed that it was like sorting beads, and later Darwinists vigorously opposed eugenics on both moral and scientific grounds. Darwin merely objected to it on moral grounds. Here's the part they edited out of the quote they gave you:

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

i only brought that back because of barb statement of a near worship of a man who did want to create a pure race.

No. As you see, he objected to the idea on moral grounds. His views on race were like Lincoln's; blacks were inferior to whites, but they deserved freedom and dignity equally with all other humans.

I'm sure you weren't aware of this, and are not one of those who are trying to paint him as other than he is.

 

[jasoncran]

so barb god made men to die, even if they didnt sin.

why would god care about us relieving suffering or heal us from disease if said disease is the way he planned for new species.

yes, im well aware of lincoln blacks, i was taught that by a black history teacher.

so when the american elites in the twenties who followed the book by darwin did take his idea of eugenics.,you do realise this right here is eugenics that the poor shouldnt have kids?

i was raised by his idea of being poor.

what book on evolution did the aclu push?

sorry barb whitewashing hate wont cut it.

he was racist, you know it, i know it. to deny that fact is denying this fact of what he saids

i dont white wash what was then.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v13i6f.htm

so evolution is fact, not falsifable ?

so when god said this

for in six days god made heaven and earth and on the seventh day he rested. moses mistunderstood what he meant as god meant eons not days?

if death and disease is normal and god ordained and suffering why them are we to stop it or pray against it. if sin did happen men would still suffer. ie die from hurricanes and disease. yet god heals.

why did jesus heal the sick? if they are supposed to die from that so that the genes could be perfected.

sorry barb, i can read and read up on darwin. i dont call him not being racist his descent of man has that all over it. have you ever debated or known racists in person and they dont just come out and say they hate.

im jewish as you well know, and i have seen how some work.

and history is full of revisionism and you just did that hook line and sinker. one would think that if darwin was so anti-slavery he would made it clear.

so why did jesus heal? if disease was all along? why did god say that because of your sin death was your consquence.

what happens when we die? we arent spirits with bodies? that is pagan idea not a christian or ancient jewish one.

theres a ressurection of the just and unjust.

 

[Barbarian]

so barb god made men to die, even if they didnt sin.

I don't see that in Darwin's writings.

why would god care about us relieving suffering or heal us from disease if said disease is the way he planned for new species.

Don't see that in Darwin's writings, either.

yes, im well aware of lincoln blacks, i was taught that by a black history teacher.

Lincoln wasn't a saint. He was just more compassionate and decent than most whites at the time.

so when the american elites in the twenties who followed the book by darwin did take his idea of eugenics.

That's the point. As you see, Darwin rejected the idea on moral grounds. And after Mendel's discoveries became understood, Darwinians objected to eugenics on moral and scientific grounds.

,you do realise this right here is eugenics that the poor shouldnt have kids?

And Darwin calls letting the poor die out an "overwhelming evil." The men who fashioned the Modern Synthesis, such as Punnett and Morgan also called it unscientific.

what book on evolution did the aclu push?

?

sorry barb whitewashing hate wont cut it.

Darwin opposed eugenics on moral grounds. Later Darwinians also showed that it was unscientific and unworkable. You've been badly misled about it, starting with that carefully edited bit someone gave you about Darwin's views.

he was racist, you know it, i know it.

As were almost all Europeans at the time. He was considered a liberal because he opposed slavery and because he thought that all men deserved freedom and dignity regardless of their race.

Which creationists at the time (such as Captain Fitzroy of the Beagle) believed to be nonsense. Most of them (not all) thought that the other races were to serve whites.

I dont white wash what was then.

Be careful not to blackwash, as well.

sorry barb, i can read and read up on darwin. i dont call him not being racist his descent of man has that all over it. have you ever debated or known racists in person and they dont just come out and say they hate.

There's no hate in his writings. He deplores the treatment his fellow Europeans gave to other people. He celebrated the banning of slavery in England. And he vigorously argued that all men were equal in deserving freedom and dignity.

and history is full of revisionism and you just did that hook line and sinker. one would think that if darwin was so anti-slavery he would made it clear.

Indeed:
Those who look tenderly at the slave-owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter; -- what a cheerless prospect, with not even a hope for change! Picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little children—those objects which nature urges even the slave to call his own—being torn from you and sold like beasts to the first bidder! And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbors as themselves, who believe in God, and pray His will be done on earth! It makes one’s blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendents, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty...but it is a consolation to reflect, that we at least have made a greater sacrifice, than ever made by any other nation to expiate our sin*.â€
From: Darwin, C., The Voyage of the Beagle, 1839, pp. 433-34 in the Meridian Version first published in 1996.
*Darwin is referring here to the British action in outlawing the Transatlantic Slave trade in 1807, the British naval squadron efforts in intercepting and capturing slave runners, and the abolition of slavery in the British Empire in 1833.
http://www.ncat.edu/~univstud/Charles Darwin on Slavery.pdf

 

[zeke]

Well, let's take a look:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species 1878

Surprise.

The only surprise is you appear to be trying to float the notion that Darwin was a Christian but he was not and if he was a theist at the time of his death the begging question is – to which god did he owe his allegiance?

“I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is adamnable doctrine.†~ Charles Darwin​

And many evolutionists, including those who most affected the modern theory, such as Theo Dobzhansky, Thomas Hunt Morgan, and others, were Christians.

The truth remains – the vast majority of evolutionary scientists today are atheists and many (Dawkins, et al) have an agenda to destroy the faith of Jesus Christ. What is the differenbce between your version of evolutionism and the evolutionism preached by Richard Dawkins?

 

[zeke]

Suggesting that God purposely put errors in his design is borderline blasphemous.

But God did not put errors into His design - are you suggesting He did?

 

[EricTheBaptist]

People tend to speak different views during different times in their life. C.S. Lewis for example, was once an Atheist who criticized the Bible and God. Later he became a Christian and revoked everything he'd ever said. I'd be one to argue that Darwin was speaking like this.

 

[MarbleShooter]

People tend to speak different views during different times in their life. C.S. Lewis for example, was once an Atheist who criticized the Bible and God. Later he became a Christian and revoked everything he'd ever said. I'd be one to argue that Darwin was speaking like this.

Darwin died believing in God, but with his research and the publishing of The OoS, he expressed his views on how life was formed. His family has backed up that he never recounted his research. I will never understand why creationists attack Darwin so much. It is obvious that the man had flawed views, but scientists after him fixed what was wrong. Arguing about Darwin being wrong about evolution, is like using Newton being wrong about Special Relativity, to deny special relativity. Scientists after them have fixed their flaws. ;)

 

[jasoncran]

show me any evidence that he died professing Christ.sorry only christ and the God of the bible will count.

not some panthiestic god. he was raised christian and if he denied God then he will be in hell.

 

[jasoncran]

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html

this says no. i have read this before darwin didnt recant at all.

 

[MarbleShooter]

show me any evidence that he died professing Christ.sorry only christ and the God of the bible will count.

not some panthiestic god. he was raised christian and if he denied God then he will be in hell.

Ease off. I did not make a claim that he was your brand of Christian. All I stated was that he believed in a God. He was clear that he believed in a God in the Origin of Species. Whatever judgement you place on that is your business. I frankly don't care.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

Darwin died believing in God, but with his research and the publishing of The OoS, he expressed his views on how life was formed. His family has backed up that he never recounted his research. I will never understand why creationists attack Darwin so much. It is obvious that the man had flawed views, but scientists after him fixed what was wrong. Arguing about Darwin being wrong about evolution, is like using Newton being wrong about Special Relativity, to deny special relativity. Scientists after them have fixed their flaws. ;)

There's a difference between Evolution and Newton's work. Evolution isn't even near the scale of importance as Special Relativity. Evolution will make or break EVERY SINGLE RELIGION in the world. That's a huge issue.