 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Date: 04 Apr 12 - 05:41 PM Penny S. My point in mentioning the mitochondrial ancestress, whom I have no intention of naming after any assumed personage, Sorry. It's how she has come to be known in the popular science press. In fact, since it works against my argument that she was really of no significance other than as a statistical oddity, I am happy to drop it. was to enlarge the point that it wasn't necessary to assume those who did not pass on their genes were either absent, or died earlier than they should. Hadn't realized that was an issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 04 Apr 12 - 06:19 PM so what great disaster do you think is going to swallow us all up if children are allowed to question darwinism? i could mention a few very nasty men who were devotees of darwin and and were responsible for more deaths than the whole history of the christian church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Apr 12 - 06:59 PM "i could mention a few very nasty men who were devotees of darwin" No you cannot. Unless you have your own personal definition of "devotee" which you have declined to share with us, you cannot cite any such devotees who had the ability to order murder on that scale. I would guess that it is just that kind of sloppy thinking, and the teaching of it, that worries the "Ian Mathers's" of this world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don Firth Date: 04 Apr 12 - 07:00 PM I think you need to substantiate that claim, pete. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Apr 12 - 10:45 PM Yeah, OK, Pete, "Social Darwinism" and eugenics led to some pretty nasty stuff, to the point were Hitler has been called a social Darwinist - but I don't think Darwin would approve of that perversion of Darwinism any more than Jesus would have approved of the many perversions of Christianity that have done horrible things over the ages. I think it's wrong to blame an idealist for those who have perverted his/her ideas and used them for evil. Blame them for their evil, not the idealist whose ideas were twisted into the antithesis of their original intent. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Apr 12 - 10:53 PM Joe has put it well. A devotee is a follower, a believer, not someone who cherry picks the writings for one's own ends. Wouldn't you agree pete? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Date: 05 Apr 12 - 02:16 AM Except of course that Darwin was not an idealist. He was a scientist- a biologist. And science deals in what is, not what ought to be. Galton, Huxley and Chamberlain were social reformers, who dealt in what they thought ought to be (esprcially no Blacks, no Jews). What disaster would arise from the crippling of science teaching? Look up Lysenko. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Date: 05 Apr 12 - 03:50 AM Funnily enough, I often say that if we didn't have religion we'd have to invent it.. Religion based on a set of standards from which you can judge your own morality can be a good thing, and so can the social and fraternal aspects of belonging. The problem is when those who aren't interested in it find themselves subjected to it. My issue is when it creeps into secular activity. We may disagree with governments, (most threads in the BS section demonstrate this,) but at the end of the day, we can change them, change their outlook and change their policies. Governments too can change their own outlook and whilst ever they claim to represent us, we can claim to engage with them. I find it incredible that The Bishop of York, when talking over marriage, said governments don't have the power to change the law as the law comes from somewhere higher. I find it incredible that The Archbishop of Canterbury feels that all children should be taught the Lords Prayer. He bristled when a reporter said "Catch 'em young eh?" As if he was above being questioned. Which is sad, because I think he is an intelligent fellow, and only failed and announced his resignation because, as this thread is showing, you can't educate pork. Which is a bit of a bugger, because they and their acolytes must be an embarrassment to the many good people who feel there is a higher spirit and are content to express it through established religion, as a cultural as much as a faith instrument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stringsinger Date: 05 Apr 12 - 10:26 AM Religion does harm people who don't believe it. It turns many practitioners into fanatics. Sanctorum for example. It has nothing to do with morality, though it can be used for immoral purposes. Saint Augustine perverted Christianity through his "just wars" doctrine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Apr 12 - 12:04 PM Religion, axes, hammers, & H-Bombs All are man made things. None are inherently good or evil. The good and evil, if there is any, are in how they are wielded. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: MGM·Lion Date: 05 Apr 12 - 12:25 PM Nice-sounding point, Jack; but no taxonomist would, on any tenable basis, put all four in the same category ~~ they would categorise axe & hammer together; religion & H-bomb in a separate category for each*. So that philosophically [taxonomically, indeed] your argument is - ah - shall we say? - a trifle suspect. ~M~ *& profound-sounding, superficially attractive, but irrational category-errors would go into yet another! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Penny S. Date: 05 Apr 12 - 05:00 PM I'm not sure if it is significant that the Aardman film "The Pirates: in an adventure with Scientists" (the chief scientist in question being Darwin) has been renamed for release in the States as "The Pirates: Band of Misfits". Apparently scientists don't sell. It will be interesting to see the reaction to Darwin as hero. Wikipedia has spoilers. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Apr 12 - 05:17 PM If I were speaking taxonomically then you would have some sort of point. I was attempting to make a more poetic, metaphorical point without repeating the cliche, "Guns (or in this case religion) don't kill people. People kill people." I feel flattered that I triggered in you some sort of rigid reflexive urge to needlessly categorize, but had you read more carefully, you would find that the ONLY similarity I pointed to among those four things is that they are man-made. I deliberately tried to make the three as different as possible, possibly triggering your vain attempt to pigeon hole them. I also wanted the items to be evocative of certain mental pictures and to have wildly varying degrees of usefulness and destructiveness to hopefully encompass the entire spectrum of the possibilities of the usefulness and destructiveness of religion. Rest assured that I was not trying to created a taxonomy quiz. Though that is not such a bad idea. But my sense of propriety would require it to be above the line and prefaced with that classic musical question from "Sesame Street" which begins, "One of these things is not like the others...." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Date: 06 Apr 12 - 02:34 AM so what great disaster do you think is going to swallow us all up if children are allowed to question darwinism? Oh, pete, I was sure you would have it by now, but here it is one more time. Darwin must be questioned all the time, just like any other piece of science. But it must be based on evidence, not just opinion. Scientic advance depends upon questioning not only things you don't yet know, but also things that you think you do. However, there is a very serious point, which could prove to be 'a great disaster which could swallow us all up' and that is when children are not taught to distinguish between sound argument with use of evidence and mere opinion, whim and fashion. I think there is a very plausible argument that the financial disasters we are currently going through are largely due to people acting on fashion and opinion without trying to form a rational basis for what they are doing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Date: 06 Apr 12 - 04:00 AM Debate theology on theology grounds. Debate science on science grounds. Simples (Evolution of meerkats in action) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 06 Apr 12 - 11:05 AM ""Debate theology on theology grounds. Debate science on science grounds."" Exactly!!!.......And teach them in the same manner, (for Pete 7*'s benefit:- Teach religion in Religious instruction classes, and science in science classes). I have never seen any science teacher attempt to teach science in an RI class. As the good book says "Go thou and do likewise". Don T |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stringsinger Date: 06 Apr 12 - 11:06 AM Guns don't shoot themselves. People use them. Why not investigate theology with science? Theologists investigate science with their agendas. Hence: Young Earth Creationism BS! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Apr 12 - 12:30 PM "I think there is a very plausible argument that the financial disasters we are currently going through are largely due to people acting on fashion and opinion without trying to form a rational basis for what they are doing. " There is a certain logic to that. The people who LOST money in the housing market did so mostly because their faith in the often repeated mantra. "Housing prices in the US never go down." On the other hand, holding the "Masters of the Universe" in Wall Street and The City of London and the financial press to a couple of biblical truisms "Thou shalt not steal" & "Thou shalt not bear false witness" would have prevented even more losses. The regulators and government let us down in that case. The laws were in place. But then, the love of money is the root of all evil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 06 Apr 12 - 02:53 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Paul Burke Date: 06 Apr 12 - 03:27 PM Best post for a long time pete |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Apr 12 - 03:32 PM Worst post in a while Paul. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stu Date: 07 Apr 12 - 10:18 AM "so what great disaster do you think is going to swallow us all up if children are allowed to question darwinism?" So what great disaster do you think is going to swallow us all up if children are allowed to question the existence of God? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Date: 07 Apr 12 - 11:49 AM Because when the big JC said suffer the children, his priests seem to have misinterpreted it... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stringsinger Date: 07 Apr 12 - 01:21 PM How about just teaching facts? Religion is a form of mythology and if you approach it that way, it can be interesting and maybe helpful in certain circumstances but I see nothing wrong with investigating it with scientific tools. Dawkins talks about the concept of NOMA, originated with Stephen J. Gould, meaning "no overlapping magisteria", science and religion can't be overlapped in the same conversation. NOMA makes no sense to me. Why shouldn't the notion of any god or religion be examined scientifically? It involves mental processes which emanate from the human brain. More is being learned about how we think and behave, adopting rationales for our behavior, accepting "memes", acceding to dogmatists in the education field who want to shut out examination of belief systems under the guise of learning. This "autocracy" has no place in a vital educational system. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 07 Apr 12 - 03:16 PM dunno what happened.type a post that did'nt materialize! i was broadly in agreement joe.i was responding to the scaremongering tactics of some catters. darwin would not have forseen the use the likes of hitler and stalin would make of his preservation of favoured races theory but i think they considered their actions consistent with darwinism.that is not to say they would not have been evil anyway but i'm not sure why their actions would be inconsistent with darwinism.
-Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Apr 12 - 05:55 PM ""but i'm not sure why their actions would be inconsistent with darwinism. "" Do you not see that it might be because Darwin's work dealt with natural selection, and there isn't much that is natural about genocide, or so-called doctors testing human beings to destruction in experiments which had no discernible purpose other than to cause death in the most painful way possible. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Apr 12 - 06:07 PM BTW Pete, are you genuinely unaware (or are you simply being deliberately disingenuous), that Darwin's theory of evolution dealt with SPECIES, not RACE. In either case, please stop disseminating this specious argument. The Holocaust came about, not from any interpretation of Darwin's writings, but from Hitler's lifelong hatred of Jews, coupled with the need to give the German people a bogeyman to fear and thus persuade them to accept the methods used by the Nazis to gain control. Simples!! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Apr 12 - 04:13 AM Don, I think if you Google hitler and social darwinism together, you'll see that there is a tie - along with the "eugenics" movement of the 1920s and 1930s. There were many in North America and Europe who shared Hitler's racist thinking - and much of it is tied to a perversion of Darwin's thought called "Social Darwinism." I went to the Easter Vigil Mass this Saturday evening, and the first reading was the creation story from Genesis. It was beautiful, but the only part of it that I believed literally was, "And God saw that it was good." -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Date: 08 Apr 12 - 04:44 AM I went to the Easter Vigil Mass this Saturday evening, and the first reading was the creation story from Genesis. It was beautiful Indeed, and so did I. I found myself wondering afterwards whether all the mentions of the heavens as a vault over the earth were also taken literally by creationists ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 08 Apr 12 - 05:42 AM ""and much of it is tied to a perversion of Darwin's thought called "Social Darwinism.""" I have read a good deal about "Social Darwinism" Joe, and I came to the conclusion that none of it has the slightest connection with Darwin or his work. The fact that they stuck that tag on their dirty work to give it a false scientific cachet is neither proof of a connection nor evidence of scientific worth. You can call a mule a racehorse, but it ain't going to win the Grand National. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: TheSnail Date: 08 Apr 12 - 05:43 AM his preservation of favoured races theory Darwin's theory of evolution dealt with SPECIES, not RACE. Darwin didn't have a favoured species theory either. Natural selection works on the individual within a species. The genes of "fitter" individuals become more widespread hence, over time, changing the characteristics of the species. Of course, "Survival of the fittest." is a circular definition since the only measure of fitness is survival. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 08 Apr 12 - 06:13 AM Deliberately misconstruing the Victorian word race is no more than a sign of desperation pete, so not much use reading anything else you write. Talking of the separation of myth and science, my old man is ranting because he wanted to go clothes shopping for his forthcoming holiday but it seems the bible states that shops in The UK over 3,000 ft sq cant open on Easter Sunday to ensure we all Internet shop instead and thanks to the God botherers all will soon be out of a job. Must say, hope he doesn't post later cos he is seriously making promises about persecuting Christians, he seems to be in favour of it. I note The Archbishop of Beardy Canterbury is quoted on BBC website today that children should be indoctrinated into Christianity because once they believe it, they get to like it. No idea if choir boys get to like it, but the court cases seem to suggest otherwise. Just my cheap shot for Easter. My old man did his Jesus on a rubber cross in the pub on Good Friday. Got a laugh, I suppose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 08 Apr 12 - 12:55 PM You ever notice that when you buy a new car, you notice hundred of cars like it on the road that you never noticed before. I think that quirk of human psychology explains Hitler's "Devotion" (as pete puts it) to Darwinism. Once he decided he wanted his "race" to be supreme. He say every thing he read as either supporting that and to be embraced or refuting it, to be dismissed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 08 Apr 12 - 02:31 PM ""I think that quirk of human psychology explains Hitler's "Devotion" (as pete puts it) to Darwinism. Once he decided he wanted his "race" to be supreme. He say every thing he read as either supporting that and to be embraced or refuting it, to be dismissed."" I think you've nailed exactly what I was talking about, rather more succinctly. No connection but what his twisted mind sought to build! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stringsinger Date: 09 Apr 12 - 10:18 AM Darwin was misinterpreted in his own day as he is now. The racial component of difference between people has been shown to be insignificant as a scientific element. Genes play a much greater role. Remember that "the survival of the fittest" is not in Darwin's writing, certainly not in the Origin Of Species. This quote was articulated by the conservative philosopher Herbert Spencer who was indirectly responsible for the "social Darwinism" movement. Crapitalists picked up on this idea to enslave the working class by justifying their actions. Hitler was not a scientist but a polemicist and propagandist as was Stalin. Creationism is an attempt to preclude science with theology and plays into the role of subjugation echoing crapitalist so-called "values". Theology is being used to manipulate economic behavior by deliberately distorting what Darwin actually said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 09 Apr 12 - 10:29 AM ""Once he decided he wanted his "race" to be supreme, He saw every thing he read as either supporting that and to be embraced or refuting it, to be dismissed."" It just struck me, JTS, that substituting "religion" for "race" in the above sentence supplies an exact description of the way in which Creationists operate. Bad, bad company to be in. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Date: 09 Apr 12 - 12:53 PM Amen to that Don... However, how does one point and say creationist or point and say Christian? A fundamentalist would by their very nature say that to be a Christian is to believe it all, rather than embrace the metaphor. The Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday that the physically impossible bits about a sentient God, who had a son, and the son came down to earth from Heaven HAD to be literally true, otherwise the whole Christian ethos doesn't make sense. I would say the exact same thing. Not sure I would come to the same conclusion though.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 09 Apr 12 - 01:53 PM Have coffee with God |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 09 Apr 12 - 02:58 PM lets clarify this shall we. i did not say darwin was a mass murderer,or that he would approve of what his more extreme admirers did.i understand in fact that darwin was anti slavery and that he became a lifelong supporter of the south american missionary society after being impressed by what they achieved among "native" peoples.evidently less extreme than some of you! i am quite aware that "races" in origins title is much broader than human life.however according to evolutionism we are animal life ;only more evolved.it seems to me then that "preservation of favoured races" would include man although darwin dealt directly with that in his later book "descent of man",the 2nd edition of which i understand included galtons ideas and spencers "survival of the fittest". i stand to be corrected by anyone doing so in a civil manner. not"desperate"pete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 09 Apr 12 - 03:04 PM Gee whiz Don. Its just human nature. Hitler and the Creationists are far from unique in this matter. I do it myself with my cars. We just have to be smart enough to recognize that trend in ourselves and to not let it cloud our thinking. That is a large part of the reason for "peer review" in science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 09 Apr 12 - 03:44 PM What does "more evolved" mean? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Bill D Date: 09 Apr 12 - 05:36 PM Herbert Spencer's ideas about evolution are not simple to clarify....and were pretty widely dicounted in later years. More later |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 09 Apr 12 - 07:43 PM "".it seems to me then that "preservation of favoured races" would include man "" There you go again, misinterpreting what Darwin actually said. Evolution, according to Darwin's Theory, is a matter of individuals (not species or races)displaying advantageous traits which increased their chances of survival. This might have been a colour variation making individuals less visible to predators, or a physical difference which allowed certain individuals to take advantage of a hitherto unfilled niche in the food chain. The point is that when these variations bred true in later generations, they led to species change. As an example, a white butterfly on a dark tree gets eaten, while a darker one lives to breed and eventually, if the variation breeds true, only dark butterflies of that species will exist in that area of dark coloured trees. In a different location where silver birch are in the majority, dark individuals get eaten and the result is that in time only white butterflies exist in that location. I cannot understand why you find that a difficult concept. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Apr 12 - 07:51 PM The example you're apparently thinking of is moths, not butterflies. The original yarn is that both "dark" and "white" moths exist in both polluted and unpolluted areas, but in different ratios. This is not an example of evolution, not by a long chalk, and, in any case, the example in question is of very dubious quality. Homework required, Don. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 10 Apr 12 - 06:56 AM It's only an example of the individual changing leading to alteration or even extinction of a species. I'm not bloody Charles Darwin, but I am closer to the truth than Pete. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 10 Apr 12 - 01:38 PM Don, is essentially correct. Darwin formulated these ideas while examining finches with specialized beaks in accord with the food sources on different islands. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: DMcG Date: 10 Apr 12 - 04:26 PM Those moths - it is important to distinguish between the principle - in which Don is correct - and a specific widely reported study of dark and light moths, which was deeply flawed and probably did more to confuse and mislead than any recent experiment - in which case Steve Shaw is correct. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Stringsinger Date: 10 Apr 12 - 06:16 PM The reason that religion might be inimical to science, whether Darwin or otherwise, is that historically religion has always, because of its authoritarian tendencies, held science back as it is doing today. Do we need evidence about the replay of the Scopes Trial? Religion doesn't explore science but makes pronouncements about it, that science is incapable of investigating religion, and that NOMA, no overlapping magisteria must prevail. This isn't true. If religious people really trust science, then they should have no objection to having their faiths and beliefs tested by it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Musket Date: 11 Apr 12 - 05:19 AM Obviously, you can't have faith and have it put to the test of reality... Faith implies just that. Faith. I don't blame pete from the stars for saying what he does. When reality blows your theory apart, you need faith, and you get that by reiterating tedious bollocks, or you lose it. hence when he asks that people are civil towards him, he doesn't realise that what he puts forward is dangerous, dangerous because there are people all over the world that wish our children to believe that you don't need an enquiring mind, just read and believe. And that is child abuse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 11 Apr 12 - 06:40 PM I think someone who hates the concept of God as worshiped and even discussed by others is certainly a God Hater. |
