Charles Robert Darwin 1809-1882

[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.

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:

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:

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:

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:

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

[antichrist]

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

[Rincewind]

Yep, 12th of February IIRC.

[Kevin Bonham]

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.

[antichrist]

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?

[antichrist]

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(?)

[Rincewind]

Darwin Day Celebrations

[Kevin Bonham]

obfusicantists(?)

Obfuscationists?

Or how about "obfuscants?"

[MichaelBaron]

Thx, to Darwin, we know that whenever we go to the Zoo, we should not forget to greet or family over there .

[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?

[Kevin Bonham]

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.

[arosar]

This article is featured in today's Review section of the AFR.

See also "Darwin Anniversaries" over at USyd.

AR

[antichrist]

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?

[antichrist]

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.

[Spiny Norman]