Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 151
  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,872

    Charles Robert Darwin 1809-1882

    Mod, it would be preferrable if you could do a professional job in transferring these posts, if you don't within tonight I will manually tidy up.

    You may want to go back further. thanks
    _____________________________________--


    Barry is natural selection neccessarily anticreation? I have previously done some reading, but not for a while, quite a while.

    Freddy

    01-02-2005, 08:45 PM #47
    David_Richards
    CC Grandmaster




    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Posts: 868 Quote:
    Originally Posted by Freddy
    Barry is natural selection neccessarily anticreation? I have previously done some reading, but not for a while, quite a while.


    Why ask Barry? he's a bloody mathematician! He's just messing with your head Scott. You need to ask that question to someone with an honours degree in Genetics from London, like what I've got Scotty! And the answer to your question is that natural selection is entirely consistent with Creationism. I mean, even Darwin knew there was a God! And there's even a suggestion there may be a God gene, put there by the Great Creator himself!
    __________________
    Nothing fades like the future or clings like the past

    David_Richards
    View Public Profile
    Challenge David_Richards in the Arcade
    Send a private message to David_Richards
    Find More Posts by David_Richards
    Add David_Richards to Your Buddy List

    01-02-2005, 09:27 PM #48
    antichrist
    CC Grandmaster


    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Posts: 710 Apes evolved out of Creationists.

    antichrist
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to antichrist
    Find More Posts by antichrist
    Add antichrist to Your Buddy List

    02-02-2005, 12:39 AM #49
    Barry Cox
    Community Leader




    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Posts: 2,511 Quote:
    Originally Posted by Freddy
    Barry is natural selection neccessarily anticreation? I have previously done some reading, but not for a while, quite a while.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by David_Richards
    Why ask Barry? he's a bloody mathematician! He's just messing with your head Scott. You need to ask that question to someone with an honours degree in Genetics from London, like what I've got Scotty! And the answer to your question is that natural selection is entirely consistent with Creationism. I mean, even Darwin knew there was a God! And there's even a suggestion there may be a God gene, put there by the Great Creator himself!


    Not sure that a degree in Genetics, honours or otherwise is really that helpful. And I'm not sure that Charles Darwin wasn't a aetheist he certainly made a number of concessions on account of his deeply religious wife and his retiring nature. But his deeply held views on religion is another question entirely and totally irrelevent to Scott's question.

    Natural selection is basically the process which says specimens which are best suited to their environment will survive and displace those which are less well suited. Evolution says that random mutation with natural selection will cause species to evolve and eventually diverge to the point that one homogeneous population bcomes two populations which biologists would recognise as distinct species. On a larger timescale this leads to new families, orders, etc, etc, etc.

    There is a school which says yes life started as a single cell ameoba (or whatever) and eventually produced the all the species of animals, plants and bacteria we see today. However, God provided the spark, guided the process, and always had in his mind to eventually wind up with humans, whom he then imbued with a soul, etc, etc, etc. This is probably the orthodox christian view.

    Another school says God created all the species (as required) over a very long timescale. Evolution might make new races within species but never results in a new species. This school also sometimes uses the noun "kind" instead of species so as to be a little vague and have some leeway in their position. For the sake of the argument lets call these guys the special creationists.

    Then you have the fringe who say natural selection doesn't change species at all, God created everything in 6 days like the good book said and there is a global conspiracy going on among scientists who say otherwise. I can't think of a polite name for these guys. But lets call them the young earthers as they also tend to think the earth can be no older than around 10,000 years. Which is just so unlikely it really is no longer funny.

    So the problem with the orthodox position is they pretty much are forced to admit we are related to the apes. Which means if we go far enough back through your parents we will get to an smoething which is no longer human or even homonid. In fact, go far enough back and you and the chimpanzees at the zoo will have a common ancestor. What's more that common ancestor is the chimps closest common ancestor to any other species on earth. The current thinking is humans and chimps separated later than we did from the other apes, including gorillas (the chimps next closest relatives).

    Now if this isn't foundation rocking enough, another thing which may be a problem is the origin of the original sin. If there was no single Adam and Eve and garden of Eden, how did original sin come into being, and if you toss out that, it makes much of the gospel more than a little irrelevent. Anyway, mileage may vary on this one depending on the theological importance of the original sin and so I won't say too much more.

    The special creationists have the problem of God intervening quite a bit in the history of the earth. Not a major problem, but also taking quite a long time to get to "the point" from a religious angle. That is creating species that can actualy believe. I mean, why waste 200+ million years witht the dinosaurs only to wipe most of them out? Seems to present more questions than it answers.

    The young earthers and just so wrong science-wise the position is only tenable in you accept the conspiracy explanation of scientific research in practically all the natural sciences. Hardly worth wasting breath on.

    There are more than three positions and I might be accused of providing strawman refutations the the three I presented - so be it. But hopefully you find my post interesting and more use than just a couple of unfounded and misleading (in my view) statements about the importance of genetics (genetics and genes were unknown to Darwin when he wrote the Origin of Species) and Darwin's religious position (which in my view is by no means clear).
    __________________
    quis crederet umquam aërias hominem carpere posse vias?

    Barry Cox
    View Public Profile
    Challenge Barry Cox in the Arcade
    Send a private message to Barry Cox
    Send email to Barry Cox
    Visit Barry Cox's homepage!
    Find More Posts by Barry Cox
    Add Barry Cox to Your Buddy List

    02-02-2005, 03:42 AM #50
    antichrist
    CC Grandmaster


    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Posts: 710 At the time of Darwin's death, Creationists reakoned that on is deathbed he recanted all of his On the Origin of the Species. But his wife soon after rebutted this and copies of her documents on this are available.

    Even if Darwin recanted it is almost meaningless, a theory holds up or doesn't regardless.

    And as someone doubted my credibility/repuatation earlier on another thread and I did not get around to answer, that if it was terrible Hitler who had discovered that two plus two equals four, it would still equal four.

    So all the imbeciles who try to smear my views by "association" have now being taught another lesson.

    antichrist
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to antichrist
    Find More Posts by antichrist
    Add antichrist to Your Buddy List

    02-02-2005, 07:36 AM #51
    Frosty
    CC Grandmaster




    Join Date: Sep 2004
    Location: Lilydale VIC Australia
    Posts: 324 Quote:
    Originally Posted by antichrist
    And as someone doubted my credibility/repuatation earlier on another thread and I did not get around to answer, that if it was terrible Hitler who had discovered that two plus two equals four, it would still equal four.


    All we need now is for someone to expand at little on the Hitler comments, a bit more to-ing and fro-ing, and then KB can invoke Godwin's law.

    But you're right AC, a fact is a fact, regardless of who presents it.

    See how conciliatory I can be? We might even become friends, who knows.
    __________________
    Korchnoi vs Karpov (Manila, 1978) triggered my first interest in chess ... wish Korchnoi had won!

    Frosty
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to Frosty
    Send email to Frosty
    Find More Posts by Frosty
    Add Frosty to Your Buddy List

    02-02-2005, 07:43 AM #52
    Frosty
    CC Grandmaster




    Join Date: Sep 2004
    Location: Lilydale VIC Australia
    Posts: 324 Quote:
    Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    There is a school which says yes life started as a single cell ameoba (or whatever) and eventually produced the all the species of animals, plants and bacteria we see today. However, God provided the spark, guided the process, and always had in his mind to eventually wind up with humans, whom he then imbued with a soul, etc, etc, etc. This is probably the orthodox christian view.

    Another school says God created all the species (as required) over a very long timescale. Evolution might make new races within species but never results in a new species. This school also sometimes uses the noun "kind" instead of species so as to be a little vague and have some leeway in their position. For the sake of the argument lets call these guys the special creationists.

    Then you have the fringe who say natural selection doesn't change species at all, God created everything in 6 days like the good book said and there is a global conspiracy going on among scientists who say otherwise. I can't think of a polite name for these guys. But lets call them the young earthers as they also tend to think the earth can be no older than around 10,000 years. Which is just so unlikely it really is no longer funny.


    Pretty good summary Barry. Problem with summaries though is that they tend to put people in boxes which (maybe) they don't quite belong in.

    Myself for example ... if I had to choose between the three "boxes" above ... I'd fit more into the last one than the other two because I don't accept that natural selection produces change in species. But I don't believe in conspiracy theories either. I do believe that the earth appears to be substantially older than 10,000 years.

    Maybe I'm a contradiction wrapped up in an anachronism?
    __________________
    Korchnoi vs Karpov (Manila, 1978) triggered my first interest in chess ... wish Korchnoi had won!

    Frosty
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to Frosty
    Send email to Frosty
    Find More Posts by Frosty
    Add Frosty to Your Buddy List

    02-02-2005, 08:15 AM #53
    David_Richards
    CC Grandmaster




    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Posts: 868 Quote:
    Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    Not sure that a degree in Genetics, honours or otherwise is really that helpful. And I'm not sure that Charles Darwin wasn't a aetheist he certainly made a number of concessions on account of his deeply religious wife and his retiring nature. But his deeply held views on religion is another question entirely and totally irrelevent to Scott's question.

    Natural selection is basically the process which says specimens which are best suited to their environment will survive and displace those which are less well suited. Evolution says that random mutation with natural selection will cause species to evolve and eventually diverge to the point that one homogeneous population bcomes two populations which biologists would recognise as distinct species. On a larger timescale this leads to new families, orders, etc, etc, etc.

    There is a school which says yes life started as a single cell ameoba (or whatever) and eventually produced the all the species of animals, plants and bacteria we see today. However, God provided the spark, guided the process, and always had in his mind to eventually wind up with humans, whom he then imbued with a soul, etc, etc, etc. This is probably the orthodox christian view.

    Another school says God created all the species (as required) over a very long timescale. Evolution might make new races within species but never results in a new species. This school also sometimes uses the noun "kind" instead of species so as to be a little vague and have some leeway in their position. For the sake of the argument lets call these guys the special creationists.

    Then you have the fringe who say natural selection doesn't change species at all, God created everything in 6 days like the good book said and there is a global conspiracy going on among scientists who say otherwise. I can't think of a polite name for these guys. But lets call them the young earthers as they also tend to think the earth can be no older than around 10,000 years. Which is just so unlikely it really is no longer funny.

    So the problem with the orthodox position is they pretty much are forced to admit we are related to the apes. Which means if we go far enough back through your parents we will get to an smoething which is no longer human or even homonid. In fact, go far enough back and you and the chimpanzees at the zoo will have a common ancestor. What's more that common ancestor is the chimps closest common ancestor to any other species on earth. The current thinking is humans and chimps separated later than we did from the other apes, including gorillas (the chimps next closest relatives).

    Now if this isn't foundation rocking enough, another thing which may be a problem is the origin of the original sin. If there was no single Adam and Eve and garden of Eden, how did original sin come into being, and if you toss out that, it makes much of the gospel more than a little irrelevent. Anyway, mileage may vary on this one depending on the theological importance of the original sin and so I won't say too much more.

    The special creationists have the problem of God intervening quite a bit in the history of the earth. Not a major problem, but also taking quite a long time to get to "the point" from a religious angle. That is creating species that can actualy believe. I mean, why waste 200+ million years witht the dinosaurs only to wipe most of them out? Seems to present more questions than it answers.

    The young earthers and just so wrong science-wise the position is only tenable in you accept the conspiracy explanation of scientific research in practically all the natural sciences. Hardly worth wasting breath on.

    There are more than three positions and I might be accused of providing strawman refutations the the three I presented - so be it. But hopefully you find my post interesting and more use than just a couple of unfounded and misleading (in my view) statements about the importance of genetics (genetics and genes were unknown to Darwin when he wrote the Origin of Species) and Darwin's religious position (which in my view is by no means clear).


    Come on, if the man who invented natural selection believed in God, and he did, then it must have come from a God-centric Universe and there are no inconsistencies. What you have described is the Classical Model. Neo-Darwinians argue it cannot generate enough vairation to entirely explain speciation, that there are other forces at work - there is a schism in opinion. What is at work - the hand of God maybe?
    __________________
    Nothing fades like the future or clings like the past

    David_Richards
    View Public Profile
    Challenge David_Richards in the Arcade
    Send a private message to David_Richards
    Find More Posts by David_Richards
    Add David_Richards to Your Buddy List

    02-02-2005, 08:49 AM #54
    Barry Cox
    Community Leader




    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Posts: 2,511 Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frosty
    Pretty good summary Barry. Problem with summaries though is that they tend to put people in boxes which (maybe) they don't quite belong in.

    Myself for example ... if I had to choose between the three "boxes" above ... I'd fit more into the last one than the other two because I don't accept that natural selection produces change in species. But I don't believe in conspiracy theories either. I do believe that the earth appears to be substantially older than 10,000 years.

    Maybe I'm a contradiction wrapped up in an anachronism?


    I don't intend to put people's views into boxes, but human nature is hard to avoid. It might be more useful to think about a belief continuum and what I described are just three point in a range of views.

    Of course, you would know your own views best but you are sounding more like box #2 than #3 dweller to me. Perhaps I just didn't make box 2 sound inviting enough.
    __________________
    quis crederet umquam aërias hominem carpere posse vias?

    Barry Cox
    View Public Profile
    Challenge Barry Cox in the Arcade
    Send a private message to Barry Cox
    Send email to Barry Cox
    Visit Barry Cox's homepage!
    Find More Posts by Barry Cox
    Add Barry Cox to Your Buddy List

    02-02-2005, 09:02 AM #55
    Barry Cox
    Community Leader




    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Posts: 2,511 Quote:
    Originally Posted by David_Richards
    Come on, if the man who invented natural selection believed in God, and he did, then it must have come from a God-centric Universe and there are no inconsistencies.


    Darwin didn't invent natural selection, he discovered it. Such linguistic abuse actually confuses your arguments. Had he invented it that would mean there could have been no evolution until the time of the publication of the Origin of Species.

    I think the faith of Darwin is not a lay-down misere. He was a very retiring man and no doubt had a deeply religious upbringing and wife. He understood the theological implications of the Origin of Man but had the intellectual honesty to present to scientific results and have them stand on their merits without appeasing the religious opposition he knew it would attract.

    Anyway, regardless of whether he invented NS or discovered it; regardless of whether Darwin was an aetheist or a Moony; the compatibilty of NS and creation is a complex question and should not be dismissed with some hand wavng and a vague statement on the supposed beliefs of Darwin.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by David_Richards
    What you have described is the Classical Model. Neo-Darwinians argue it cannot generate enough vairation to entirely explain speciation, that there are other forces at work - there is a schism in opinion. What is at work - the hand of God maybe?


    What I tried to describe was natural selection. Please describe how it is inconsistent with the neo-Darwinians, in your view.
    __________________
    quis crederet umquam aërias hominem carpere posse vias?

    Barry Cox
    View Public Profile
    Challenge Barry Cox in the Arcade
    Send a private message to Barry Cox
    Send email to Barry Cox
    Visit Barry Cox's homepage!
    Find More Posts by Barry Cox
    Add Barry Cox to Your Buddy List

    02-02-2005, 02:37 PM #56
    firegoat7
    CC Grandmaster


    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Location: MCC
    Posts: 437 Hello,

    I call for a democratic vote on whether this thread ought to be split. It is clearly off track, not that this is a bad thing. I just want to call the moderators on consistency.

    Cheers FG7

    P.S not that I believe that threads ought to be split, but I am curious to know whether Frosty does? Does this thread meet your criteria Frosty?
    __________________
    'Government's an affair of sitting, not hitting. You rule with the brains and buttocks, never with the fists. For example, there was the conscription of consumption.' Aldous Huxley- Brave New World

    firegoat7
    View Public Profile
    Challenge firegoat7 in the Arcade
    Send a private message to firegoat7
    Find More Posts by firegoat7
    Add firegoat7 to Your Buddy List

    02-02-2005, 03:03 PM #57
    Barry Cox
    Community Leader




    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Posts: 2,511 Quote:
    Originally Posted by firegoat7
    I call for a democratic vote on whether this thread ought to be split. It is clearly off track, not that this is a bad thing. I just want to call the moderators on consistency.


    The importance of the role of evolution in undermining the absolutist position on the value of human life over all others I think warrants the digression and I don't feel it is as yet off-topic.

    The question is if all (wo)mankind and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor in the reasonably recent past (last 10 million years say) then how can the position of a single human life being more valuable than all other life on the planet be sustained?
    __________________
    quis crederet umquam aërias hominem carpere posse vias?

    Barry Cox
    View Public Profile
    Challenge Barry Cox in the Arcade
    Send a private message to Barry Cox
    Send email to Barry Cox
    Visit Barry Cox's homepage!
    Find More Posts by Barry Cox
    Add Barry Cox to Your Buddy List

    02-02-2005, 03:58 PM #58
    Freddy
    CC FIDE Master


    Join Date: Nov 2004
    Posts: 89 So Barry. I guess it is then fair to say that natural selection is not necessarily contradictory to evolution. I have absolutely no problem with it.
    The age of the earth is a interesting question. The Bible makes no real determination on the age of the earth, only what God created on it.
    From just reading Genesis 1:1-2 all of these things are possible. I am not saying they did happen, just they are not inconsistent, in my opinion, with what is written.
    Some time, maybe a lot of time, maybe billions of years of time occured between God creating the earth and creation that is described in the rest of Genesis 1 and 2.
    During this time maybe the dinosuars lived on the earth and died out or there was different laws of nature/science at work on the earth. Either of these might explain some of the dating of the earth without there being a massive conspiracy of scientists.
    There is also the possibilty the earth existed without time existing.
    I don't believe in a massive conspircy of scientists in that all evolutionist scientist have agreed to put forth a view which they know are wrong to hide creation. I think this idea is just stupid.
    I don't why evolution has come forth, I just don't why, I just believe it to be wrong.
    Scott

    Freddy
    View Public Profile
    Challenge Freddy in the Arcade
    Send a private message to Freddy
    Find More Posts by Freddy
    Add Freddy to Your Buddy List

    02-02-2005, 04:05 PM #59
    Bruce Dickinson
    Pure Imagination
    Space Invaders Champion!
    Asteroids Champion!
    Tetris Champion!





    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Location: Brisbane
    Posts: 1,513
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by David_Richards
    Because language created God, he is the word. Without language God doesn't exist.


    Nonsense. If your argument was true then if I was the only man left on earth God would simply cease to be as I have no one to communicate with or language to express myself.

    Quote:
    He can only be arrived at abstractly, and for that a language must exist capable of such conceptualisation.


    Since when is language a prerequisite for abstraction? There are many things difficult to communicate, perhaps beyond our own capabilities.

    Quote:
    The Greeks even coined the term 'Son of Man' and explored some of these concepts.


    You're focusing too much on the Logos and not enough on pure spirituality. You should see what some of these Eastern monks are capable of, without language.
    __________________
    "There is no other sense or meaning of Being than the one we bestow on entities in our understanding." - Martin Heidegger

    Koopa Troopa!

    Bruce Dickinson
    View Public Profile
    Challenge Bruce Dickinson in the Arcade
    Send a private message to Bruce Dickinson
    Send email to Bruce Dickinson
    Visit Bruce Dickinson's homepage!
    Find More Posts by Bruce Dickinson
    Add Bruce Dickinson to Your Buddy List

    02-02-2005, 05:22 PM #60
    David_Richards
    CC Grandmaster




    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Posts: 868 Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bruce Dickinson
    Nonsense. If your argument was true then if I was the only man left on earth God would simply cease to be as I have no one to communicate with or language to express myself.


    Its a harsh judgement I know!


    Quote:
    Since when is language a prerequisite for abstraction? There are many things difficult to communicate, perhaps beyond our own capabilities.


    Not for abstraction but to communicate abstraction, even to oneself.
    __________________
    Nothing fades like the future or clings like the past

    David_Richards
    View Public Profile
    Challenge David_Richards in the Arcade
    Send a private message to David_Richards
    Find More Posts by David_Richards
    Add David_Richards to Your Buddy List

    Page 4 of 5 « First < 2 3 4 5 >



    « Previous Thread | Next Thread »

    Quick Reply
    Message:


    Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.
    PGN Functions
    PGN Uploader
    PGN Recorder

    Options




    Originally Posted by David_Richards
    Come on, if the man who invented natural selection believed in God, and he did, then it must have come from a God-centric Universe and there are no inconsistencies. What you have described is the Classical Model. Neo-Darwinians argue it cannot generate enough vairation to entirely explain speciation, that there are other forces at work - there is a schism in opinion. What is at work - the hand of God maybe?


    Before reading the rest of the posts I read or seen on TV that Charlie became atheistic due to Problem of Evil, specifically, his young favourite daughter dying at an early age due to some disease. As he was earmarked by his father to become a pastor and had studied theology he did quite a turn around. I am sure this fact is easy to find.
    Edit Post
    Title:

    Message:
    Quote Originally Posted by David_Richards
    Come on, if the man who invented natural selection believed in God, and he did, then it must have come from a God-centric Universe and there are no inconsistencies. What you have described is the Classical Model. Neo-Darwinians argue it cannot generate enough vairation to entirely explain speciation, that there are other forces at work - there is a schism in opinion. What is at work - the hand of God maybe?
    Before reading the rest of the posts I read or seen on TV that Charlie became atheistic due to Problem of Evil, specifically, his young favourite daughter dying at an early age due to some disease. As he was earmarked by his father to become a pastor and had studied theology he did quite a turn around. I am sure this fact is easy to find.
    Reason for Editing:

    Signature

    antichrist
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to antichrist
    Find More Posts by antichrist
    Add antichrist to Your Buddy List

    02-02-2005, 05:24 PM #62
    David_Richards
    CC Grandmaster




    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Posts: 868 Quote:
    Originally Posted by Freddy
    So Barry. I guess it is then fair to say that natural selection is not necessarily contradictory to evolution. I have absolutely no problem with it.
    The age of the earth is a interesting question. The Bible makes no real determination on the age of the earth, only what God created on it.
    From just reading Genesis 1:1-2 all of these things are possible. I am not saying they did happen, just they are not inconsistent, in my opinion, with what is written.
    Some time, maybe a lot of time, maybe billions of years of time occured between God creating the earth and creation that is described in the rest of Genesis 1 and 2.
    During this time maybe the dinosuars lived on the earth and died out or there was different laws of nature/science at work on the earth. Either of these might explain some of the dating of the earth without there being a massive conspiracy of scientists.
    There is also the possibilty the earth existed without time existing.
    I don't believe in a massive conspircy of scientists in that all evolutionist scientist have agreed to put forth a view which they know are wrong to hide creation. I think this idea is just stupid.
    I don't why evolution has come forth, I just don't why, I just believe it to be wrong.
    Scott


    Great post Scotty, I think you'll leave Barry gobsmacked!
    __________________
    Nothing fades like the future or clings like the past

    David_Richards
    View Public Profile
    Challenge David_Richards in the Arcade
    Send a private message to David_Richards
    Find More Posts by David_Richards
    Add David_Richards to Your Buddy List

    02-02-2005, 05:26 PM #63
    David_Richards
    CC Grandmaster




    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Posts: 868 Quote:
    Originally Posted by antichrist
    Before reading the rest of the posts I read or seen on TV that Charlie became atheistic due to Problem of Evil, specifically, his young favourite daughter dying at an early age due to some disease. As he was earmarked by his father to become a pastor and had studied theology he did quite a turn around. I am sure this fact is easy to find.


    If he was an atheist, they would never have let him in the Royal Society!
    __________________
    Nothing fades like the future or clings like the past

    David_Richards
    View Public Profile
    Challenge David_Richards in the Arcade
    Send a private message to David_Richards
    Find More Posts by David_Richards
    Add David_Richards to Your Buddy List

    02-02-2005, 05:29 PM #64
    David_Richards
    CC Grandmaster




    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Posts: 868 Quote:
    Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    What I tried to describe was natural selection. Please describe how it is inconsistent with the neo-Darwinians, in your view.



    Not inconsistent, just there is something more at work to explain diversity, speciation and gene creation than the Classical Theory. What is it - God knows!
    __________________
    Nothing fades like the future or clings like the past

    David_Richards
    View Public Profile
    Challenge David_Richards in the Arcade
    Send a private message to David_Richards
    Find More Posts by David_Richards
    Add David_Richards to Your Buddy List

    02-02-2005, 05:31 PM #65
    antichrist
    CC Grandmaster


    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Posts: 709 Quote:
    Originally Posted by Freddy
    The age of the earth is a interesting question. The Bible makes no real determination on the age of the earth, only what God created on it.
    From just reading Genesis 1:1-2 all of these things are possible. I am not saying they did happen, just they are not inconsistent, in my opinion, with what is written.
    Some time, maybe a lot of time, maybe billions of years of time occured between God creating the earth and creation that is described in the rest of Genesis 1 and 2.
    During this time maybe the dinosuars lived on the earth and died out or there was different laws of nature/science at work on the earth. Either of these might explain some of the dating of the earth without there being a massive conspiracy of scientists.
    There is also the possibilty the earth existed without time existing.
    I don't believe in a massive conspircy of scientists in that all evolutionist scientist have agreed to put forth a view which they know are wrong to hide creation. I think this idea is just stupid.
    I don't why evolution has come forth, I just don't why, I just believe it to be wrong.
    Scott


    The "Bible junkies" have interpreted the Bible to pinpoint the creation of the earth by God at 10am (Oxford Uni time maybe), some day in October in 2004 BC.

    I actually put out a commerative issue of a magazine when "we" were exactly 6,000 years old, in 1996 I think it was.

    In fact it was a bishop whose name I can't catch. I actually got a mention on the backpage of the SMH for picking up this fact.
    Edit Post
    Title:

    Message:
    Quote Originally Posted by Freddy
    The age of the earth is a interesting question. The Bible makes no real determination on the age of the earth, only what God created on it.
    From just reading Genesis 1:1-2 all of these things are possible. I am not saying they did happen, just they are not inconsistent, in my opinion, with what is written.
    Some time, maybe a lot of time, maybe billions of years of time occured between God creating the earth and creation that is described in the rest of Genesis 1 and 2.
    During this time maybe the dinosuars lived on the earth and died out or there was different laws of nature/science at work on the earth. Either of these might explain some of the dating of the earth without there being a massive conspiracy of scientists.
    There is also the possibilty the earth existed without time existing.
    I don't believe in a massive conspircy of scientists in that all evolutionist scientist have agreed to put forth a view which they know are wrong to hide creation. I think this idea is just stupid.
    I don't why evolution has come forth, I just don't why, I just believe it to be wrong.
    Scott
    The "Bible junkies" have interpreted the Bible to pinpoint the creation of the earth by God at 10am (Oxford Uni time maybe), some day in October in 2004 BC.

    I actually put out a commerative issue of a magazine when "we" were exactly 6,000 years old, in 1996 I think it was.

    In fact it was a bishop whose name I can't catch. I actually got a mention on the backpage of the SMH for picking up this fact.
    Reason for Editing:

    Signature

    antichrist
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to antichrist
    Find More Posts by antichrist
    Add antichrist to Your Buddy List

    02-02-2005, 05:33 PM #66
    Bruce Dickinson
    Pure Imagination
    Space Invaders Champion!
    Asteroids Champion!
    Tetris Champion!





    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Location: Brisbane
    Posts: 1,513
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by antichrist
    The "Bible junkies" have interpreted the Bible to pinpoint the creation of the earth by God at 10am (Oxford Uni time maybe), some day in October in 2004 BC.

    I actually put out a commerative issue of a magazine when "we" were exactly 6,000 years old, in 1996 I think it was.

    In fact it was a bishop whose name I can't catch. I actually got a mention on the backpage of the SMH for picking up this fact.


    It was Bishop Usher.
    __________________
    "There is no other sense or meaning of Being than the one we bestow on entities in our understanding." - Martin Heidegger

    Koopa Troopa!

    Bruce Dickinson
    View Public Profile
    Challenge Bruce Dickinson in the Arcade
    Send a private message to Bruce Dickinson
    Send email to Bruce Dickinson
    Visit Bruce Dickinson's homepage!
    Find More Posts by Bruce Dickinson
    Add Bruce Dickinson to Your Buddy List

    02-02-2005, 05:36 PM #67
    antichrist
    CC Grandmaster


    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Posts: 709 Quote:
    Originally Posted by David_Richards
    If he was an atheist, they would never have let him in the Royal Society!


    Not necessarily, anyway I said atheistic, which in his case meant looking at the totalily of his views over a period of time. Not a in-your-face, down-your-throat, up-your-backside atheist like I am.

    It was not him who defended himself at the Royal Society, it was Darwin's bulldog - Huxley.

    Anyway how could a man who on one side had a ape as a grandparent defend himself. Was it Bishop Wilberforce who said that?
    Edit Post
    Title:

    Message:
    Quote Originally Posted by David_Richards
    If he was an atheist, they would never have let him in the Royal Society!
    Not necessarily, anyway I said atheistic, which in his case meant looking at the totalily of his views over a period of time. Not a in-your-face, down-your-throat, up-your-backside atheist like I am.

    It was not him who defended himself at the Royal Society, it was Darwin's bulldog - Huxley.

    Anyway how could a man who on one side had a ape as a grandparent defend himself. Was it Bishop Wilberforce who said that?
    Reason for Editing:

    Signature

    antichrist
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to antichrist
    Find More Posts by antichrist
    Add antichrist to Your Buddy List

    02-02-2005, 05:38 PM #68
    antichrist
    CC Grandmaster


    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Posts: 709 Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bruce Dickinson
    It was Bishop Usher.


    That is correct, though a chance it may have been spelt "Ussher", but I think your spelling may be correct.
    Edit Post
    Title:

    Message:
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Dickinson
    It was Bishop Usher.
    That is correct, though a chance it may have been spelt "Ussher", but I think your spelling may be correct.
    Reason for Editing:

    Signature

    antichrist
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to antichrist
    Find More Posts by antichrist
    Add antichrist to Your Buddy List

    02-02-2005, 05:39 PM #69
    Barry Cox
    Community Leader




    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Posts: 2,511 Quote:
    Originally Posted by David_Richards
    Not inconsistent, just there is something more at work to explain diversity, speciation and gene creation than the Classical Theory. What is it - God knows!


    Can you support this claim?
    __________________
    quis crederet umquam aërias hominem carpere posse vias?

    Barry Cox
    View Public Profile
    Challenge Barry Cox in the Arcade
    Send a private message to Barry Cox
    Send email to Barry Cox
    Visit Barry Cox's homepage!
    Find More Posts by Barry Cox
    Add Barry Cox to Your Buddy List

    02-02-2005, 05:40 PM #70
    David_Richards
    CC Grandmaster




    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Posts: 868 Quote:
    Originally Posted by antichrist
    Not necessarily, anyway I said atheistic, which in his case meant looking at the totalily of his views over a period of time. Not a in-your-face, down-your-throat, up-your-backside atheist like I am.

    It was not him who defended himself at the Royal Society, it was Darwin's bulldog - Huxley.

    Anyway how could a man who on one side had a ape as a grandparent defend himself. Was it Bishop Wilberforce who said that?


    It was policitically unacceptable for him to have been forthright with his private thoughts - his work was too important. I guess we'll never know, but it's useful propaganda!
    __________________
    Nothing fades like the future or clings like the past

    David_Richards
    View Public Profile
    Challenge David_Richards in the Arcade
    Send a private message to David_Richards
    Find More Posts by David_Richards
    Add David_Richards to Your Buddy List

    02-02-2005, 05:46 PM #71
    Barry Cox
    Community Leader




    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Posts: 2,511 Quote:
    Originally Posted by David_Richards
    It was policitically unacceptable for him to have been forthright with his private thoughts - his work was too important. I guess we'll never know, but it's useful propaganda!


    My guess is based on a number of his comments in various writings of Darwin over his career, is that by the end of his life he was as atheistic as was permissible by social convention of the time. That it to say he was probably whgat we would call today a deist or perhaps agnostic.

    If we wish to discuss further, can repliers please reply in a new thread as I have pointed out earlier this is irrelevent.
    __________________
    quis crederet umquam aërias hominem carpere posse vias?

    Barry Cox
    View Public Profile
    Challenge Barry Cox in the Arcade
    Send a private message to Barry Cox
    Send email to Barry Cox
    Visit Barry Cox's homepage!
    Find More Posts by Barry Cox
    Add Barry Cox to Your Buddy List

    Page 5 of 5 « First < 3 4 5



    « Previous Thread | Next Thread »

    Quick Reply
    Message:


    Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.
    PGN Functions
    PGN Uploader
    PGN Recorder

    Options
    Quote message in reply?



    Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 3 (3 members and 0 guests)
    antichrist, David_Richards

    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version
    Email this Page
    Subscribe to this Thread
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode
    Switch to Hybrid Mode
    Switch to Threaded Mode
    Search this Thread


    Advanced Search
    Rate This Thread
    You have already rated this thread

    Posting Rules
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may post attachments
    You may edit your posts

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    vB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Last edited by antichrist; 02-02-2005 at 05:01 PM.

  2. #2
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,872
    It is 200 anniversary of Charles Darwin's birthday coming up shortly, I think there are about a dozen new books abou t him being released

  3. #3
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Yep, 12th of February IIRC.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  4. #4
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,488
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist
    Mod, it would be preferrable if you could do a professional job in transferring these posts, if you don't within tonight I will manually tidy up.
    Sheesh, if you want me to do a professional job cleaning up that mess you can pay me!

    If you're just referring to an old thread why not just post a link to it or make a new thread to that post?

    If I'm ever over your way though, I am willing to spend a few hours teaching you how to do the quote thing properly. It's actually extremely easy.

  5. #5
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,872
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Sheesh, if you want me to do a professional job cleaning up that mess you can pay me!

    If you're just referring to an old thread why not just post a link to it or make a new thread to that post?

    If I'm ever over your way though, I am willing to spend a few hours teaching you how to do the quote thing properly. It's actually extremely easy.
    But after I beat you in a few friendly games you may tell me to clean it up myself. How old was that post of mine, a few years?

  6. #6
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,872
    There is a full page on Charles Darwin in today's Sydney Moring Herald. Well worth reading.

    He wanted evidence of any god before believing - and this was not forthcomig - note all you lousy Creationists.

    His other reason for not believing was the problem of evil - not all you lousy obfusicantists(?)

  7. #7
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  8. #8
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,488
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist
    obfusicantists(?)
    Obfuscationists?

    Or how about "obfuscants?"

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,338
    Thx, to Darwin, we know that whenever we go to the Zoo, we should not forget to greet or family over there .
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  10. #10
    CC Grandmaster Adamski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Penrith, NSW
    Posts
    8,660
    AC's initial post might be not only the longest but also the most repetitive post in the history of Chess Chat? AC can't you cut out some of the repetition?
    God exists. Short and to the point.

    Secretary of, and regularly arbiter at, Rooty Hill RSL Chess Club. See www.rootyhillchessclub.org.

    Psephological insight. "Controversial will only lose you votes. Courageous will lose you the election." Sir Humphrey Appleby on Yes Minister.

    Favorite movie line: Girl friend Cathy to Jack Ryan in "Sum of all Fears". "What kind of emergency does an historian have?".

  11. #11
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,488
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamski
    AC's initial post might be not only the longest but also the most repetitive post in the history of Chess Chat? AC can't you cut out some of the repetition?
    He seems to be trying to draw our attention to various posts on the previous thread http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=1932 so I suggest anyone interested in reading that thread ("Was Darwin a theist?") just go there.

  12. #12
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,046
    This article is featured in today's Review section of the AFR.

    See also "Darwin Anniversaries" over at USyd.

    AR

  13. #13
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,872
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron
    Thx, to Darwin, we know that whenever we go to the Zoo, we should not forget to greet or family over there .

    But you don't really believe it do you?

  14. #14
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,872
    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    This article is featured in today's Review section of the AFR.

    See also "Darwin Anniversaries" over at USyd.

    AR
    I will have to plan a quick demo at Byron Bay. The last one I did was all nudists except for myself. I came late and did not have a chance to strip. It was all cyclists who rode around the shopping centre and beaches nude, except for body paint in the nether regions - could you believe. I have some good shots of it. There was a big nude party afterwards - many young backpackers amongst them.

  15. #15
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. ACF March 2004 Ratings
    By Bill Gletsos in forum Ratings Arena
    Replies: 310
    Last Post: 14-04-2004, 03:58 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •