Pierre Von Mondragon Posted February 26, 2008 Report Share Posted February 26, 2008 Ha, Ha, let the nutjobs have their fun, for they are culturally de-evolving* before our very eyes.*becoming dumber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Gold Posted February 26, 2008 Report Share Posted February 26, 2008 Didn't darwin become a Christian and say all his theories were a load of bollocks before he died?Doesn't really matter if he genuinely did. Evolutionary theory didn't exactly stop with Darwin, you silly sausage.And no, turns out God wasn't proven wrong after all: it was just a stain on a tea towel. Let the bickering continue! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottyboy Posted February 26, 2008 Report Share Posted February 26, 2008 Didn't darwin become a Christian and say all his theories were a load of bollocks before he died?With regard to saying his theories were a load of bollocks: no I don't think so. However, apparently he always was a christian and didn't have much trouble reconciling his wider beliefs with his theories (bar the whole creation thing, obviously). Most of what I wrote in this thread was pish anyway, I just got gleefully carried away trying to wind up 'dave'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottyboy Posted February 26, 2008 Report Share Posted February 26, 2008 Have they not always tought this in UK schools seeing as this is considered to be a Christian country?secular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundian Posted February 26, 2008 Report Share Posted February 26, 2008 Well Mr T, you've brought up a couple of points that are used by creationists to "prove" that they're right, Darwin refuting evolution on his deathbed and inaccurate carbon dating results. Let's looks at Darwin first. 1) Can anyone prove or disprove that he did say that? A lot of people say he didn't. 2) He was brought up in a culture that is more religious than it is today, he trained for the clergy, he was in fact vicar (or whatever name is used for whatever religion he was). 3) Because of his religious background he was loathe to publish his findings on evolution and did so reluctantly because some young whipper-snapper had the same idea and sent him an outline of a paper that he was preparing which basically stated everything that Darwin thought himself. 4) Taking his religious background into account I'm wouldn't be surprised if he did try to refute evolution on his deathbed. Let's face it, he was only a few minutes/hours away from finding out if there was a god or not so, taking his religious background into account, I'm not surprised he went for the "hedging his bets" option. 5) Even if he did say it, that proves nothing. Carbon Dating. There are several reasons for inaccurate carbon dating results. One of the principal reasons was the fact that the person/people who developed the technique got their sums wrong initially and it was too late to change it by the time anyone noticed. All carbon dating is subject to the same offset due to this initial error. Sample contamination is also a big problem with carbon dating. Nevertheless carbon dating is a useful tool with known error bars. No one can say for sure how old something is using carbon dating but they can tell you with high degrees of certainty how young/old it isn't. Anyway, carbon dating is only useful for a few thousand years in the past and on organic matter. Using radium/lead ratios in crystals scientists have proven (within the limits of modern science) that some rocks are about 3.8 BILLION years old, that's 3,800,000,000 years. Compare that to the 10,000 years or so that creationism teaches and I'm afraid that (imo anyway) there is no way that science can be that wrong. Even if someone throws in the differing rates of radioactive decay theory there would have to be a HUGE change in radioactivity levels in the past 10,000 years to throw up results like that and such a change, unless for some bizarre reason it happened in jumps, would be easily measurable today. Then add in all the other geological evidence, deposition rates of sediments, rates of mountain building and erosion, tectonic plate movement etc and you're left with, as far as I can see, 3 possible explanations.1) God created the earth 10,000 years ago but decided to put in a lot of evidence that it was a lot older.2) The universe was on some sort of fast-forward, like a gigantic VCR, until 10,000 years ago and for some reason god has hit play.3) Creationism is wrong. While 1) and 2) are possible I think they are so unlikely that the only reasonable conclusion to reach is 3). If the heavens and the earth and all the creatures on it were created in 7 days 10,000 years ago then the definition of day is different to the one that we currently use or the original texts have been transcribed and/or translated wrongly. To err is human after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre Von Mondragon Posted February 26, 2008 Report Share Posted February 26, 2008 Ah the beauty of Occam's Razor Ian, well wielded in your conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundian Posted February 26, 2008 Report Share Posted February 26, 2008 Ah the beauty of Occam's Razor Ian, well wielded in your conclusion. Not at all, some people find the simpler explanation is to believe what they're told rather than contemplate the "yawning chasm of time" necessary to "believe" in evolution. For example (referring to my conclusions above):1) God is ineffable. Not only does Man not know why he would do such a thing, Man cannot know why he would do such a thing.2) If god created the entire universe and everything in it then surely a little bit of time manipulation is not beyond his omnipotent powers.3) Descended from monkeys, are you mad! That surely can't be right. In this case Occams Razor is a double-edged, erm, razor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted February 26, 2008 Report Share Posted February 26, 2008 Carbon dating is well known to be completely wrong a lot of the time. There is far too much physical evidence on the planet that lines up with the Bible to completely discount it's content. Many scientists use it as a guide for their research.No, carbon dating is well-known to be misunderstood by critics a lot of the time. Also, what physical evidence lines up with the bible? Also, which scientists use it as a guide for their research? I honestly have never met a scientist who uses the bible as any sort of guide for their research, and I work with a number of scientists who are devout Christians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrT Posted February 26, 2008 Report Share Posted February 26, 2008 Well Mr T, you've brought up a couple of points that are used by creationists to "prove" that they're right, Darwin refuting evolution on his deathbed and inaccurate carbon dating results. Let's looks at Darwin first. 1) Can anyone prove or disprove that he did say that? A lot of people say he didn't. 2) He was brought up in a culture that is more religious than it is today, he trained for the clergy, he was in fact vicar (or whatever name is used for whatever religion he was). 3) Because of his religious background he was loathe to publish his findings on evolution and did so reluctantly because some young whipper-snapper had the same idea and sent him an outline of a paper that he was preparing which basically stated everything that Darwin thought himself. 4) Taking his religious background into account I'm wouldn't be surprised if he did try to refute evolution on his deathbed. Let's face it, he was only a few minutes/hours away from finding out if there was a god or not so, taking his religious background into account, I'm not surprised he went for the "hedging his bets" option. 5) Even if he did say it, that proves nothing. Carbon Dating. There are several reasons for inaccurate carbon dating results. One of the principal reasons was the fact that the person/people who developed the technique got their sums wrong initially and it was too late to change it by the time anyone noticed. All carbon dating is subject to the same offset due to this initial error. Sample contamination is also a big problem with carbon dating. Nevertheless carbon dating is a useful tool with known error bars. No one can say for sure how old something is using carbon dating but they can tell you with high degrees of certainty how young/old it isn't. Anyway, carbon dating is only useful for a few thousand years in the past and on organic matter. Using radium/lead ratios in crystals scientists have proven (within the limits of modern science) that some rocks are about 3.8 BILLION years old, that's 3,800,000,000 years. Compare that to the 10,000 years or so that creationism teaches and I'm afraid that (imo anyway) there is no way that science can be that wrong. Even if someone throws in the differing rates of radioactive decay theory there would have to be a HUGE change in radioactivity levels in the past 10,000 years to throw up results like that and such a change, unless for some bizarre reason it happened in jumps, would be easily measurable today. Then add in all the other geological evidence, deposition rates of sediments, rates of mountain building and erosion, tectonic plate movement etc and you're left with, as far as I can see, 3 possible explanations.1) God created the earth 10,000 years ago but decided to put in a lot of evidence that it was a lot older.2) The universe was on some sort of fast-forward, like a gigantic VCR, until 10,000 years ago and for some reason god has hit play.3) Creationism is wrong. While 1) and 2) are possible I think they are so unlikely that the only reasonable conclusion to reach is 3). If the heavens and the earth and all the creatures on it were created in 7 days 10,000 years ago then the definition of day is different to the one that we currently use or the original texts have been transcribed and/or translated wrongly. To err is human after all.Excellent answer Captain C! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Neutral Posted February 26, 2008 Report Share Posted February 26, 2008 there are many similarities between allah and god the main one being that they don't exist - Like santa and the babushka lady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre Von Mondragon Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 Everything is double edged when sufficiently contemplated.Jus' call me Profundo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottyboy Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 there are many similarities between allah and god the main one being that they don't exist - Like santa and the babushka ladyi think they're supposed to be the same guy. god and allah that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lepeep Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 i think they're supposed to be the same guy. god and allah that is.yeah...tell that to each side!I had a conversation with a devout Christian (who'd actually met jesus)...Apparently, "you can't use logic when talking about faith"....another excellent get out clause.you have to feel it, not reason with it. (of course!)I'd argued that the semantics of the language used (on "both sides" (Muslim & Christina)) were the problem - the use of words like : God, Jesus, Allah etc..."why can't you all just talk about "love and peace", without attaching these concepts to a prerequisite of having to believe in a SPECIFICLY NAMED reason in order to "validate" the ultimate reason for having faith : the benefit and goodness of "mankind"...they then said that they couldn't "ditch" the use of words like "god" & "Christianity" - as this would nullify their faith.so, you see, humans care more about words and joining clubs than actual concepts of peace, love and harmony...it's the fundamental drive of religion, to make people feel they belong, and ultimately know that when their piss poor waste of time on this planet was "for something"...there is nothing more humbling than realising that you are nothing, in the grand scale of things - so in order to generate a sense of importance to the human race, we make up stories that we are "chosen beings" and "made in His image" etc.the planets biomass is predominantly made up of insects, so whos not to say that they are the chosen ones? (I got laughed at for that one)...it's all so pathetically human centric, selfish bollox. we'll be long dead when global warming kicks in, and wholl be left to "look after this earth"...yip, the real chosen ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveCrisis Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 the planets biomass is predominantly made up of insects, so whos not to say that they are the chosen ones? (I got laughed at for that one)...it's all so pathetically human centric, selfish bollox. we'll be long dead when global warming kicks in, and wholl be left to "look after this earth"...yip, the real chosen ones.I'm reading MATTER by Iain M Banks at the moment and in this particular novel one of the more advanced alien species is insectoid. They also think that they are the chosen ones and have helped a leser developed, less technologically advanced, humanoid species unearth an artifact that's lying buried in the humanoids' home world which they hope will reveal and explain a missing chunk of history in the insectoids' evolution and sublimation.Anyway, back on topic. Religion sucks and should die a death. Science kicks arse. End of.Oh, and there's no such thing as intelligent design. I'm with Christopher Brookmyre on this one: www.brookmyre.co.uk :: The Future by Christopher Brookmyre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Neutral Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 i think they're supposed to be the same guy. god and allah that is.Yes they are almost identical ideologies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoodyRATM Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 it's all so pathetically human centric, selfish bollox. we'll be long dead when global warming kicks in, and wholl be left to "look after this earth"...yip, the real chosen ones.Real chosen ones? being cockroaches and cher? or are they the two who'll survice nuclear warfare? i forget.He'd met jesus? How'd he explain that one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lepeep Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 they couldn't hence: "not dealing with things with logic".all I was told was to "believe that they had"...it was likened to an orgasm, without the sexual conotation. (so no finar finars).props to em, but for me...that doesn't quite cut it..ps. cher will melt in the holocaust, doofus! what are you on?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.