Jump to content

Canadians divided over creation and evolution


jdobbin

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 857
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let HIV/AIDS victims know that their virus comes from scientific experimentations and surgeries on apes and then on humans.

Right after you get out of your 'The Moon Landings Were A Hoax' meeting, I'll hop right on it.

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The letter "a" that distinguishes "theist" from "atheist" is essentially symbolizing parasitism.

...when monkeys developed sufficiently large enough braincases, they suddenly were able to grasp the concept that they would one day die. This was not something that the monkeys were very keen on, and so they immediately set about imagining scenarios in which this evident truth would be anything but.

http://encyclopediaofstupid.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...when monkeys developed sufficiently large enough braincases, they suddenly were able to grasp the concept that they would one day die. This was not something that the monkeys were very keen on, and so they immediately set about imagining scenarios in which this evident truth would be anything but.

http://encyclopediaofstupid.com/

Science helps people to discover how they can be and stay undead, from there they can laugh at people who react differently towards death.

Edited by benny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science help people discovering how they can be and stay undead, from there they can laugh at people who react differently toward death.

Science help(s) people (to discover) how they can be undead and stay undead. From there they can laugh at people who react differently toward(s) death.

The blue pencil treatment 4 u...

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see, Darwin never actually questioned his own theory. He was very confident that he had determined the proper mechanism for the change in species. The particular phrase that Betsy likes to repeat came at the start of Origin of Species, and the purpose was not to suggest evolution was 'wrong', but as a preamble preemptivley indicating that all possible objections to his theory would be dealt with. The Origin of Species was not designed to be a comprehensive, self-contained work, but to refer to and be referenced by other material that had been published.

In fact, the introduction of Origin of Species ends with the following statement:

I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists until recently entertained, and which I formerly entertained -- namely, that each species has been independently created -- is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable [changeless]; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendant of some other and generaly extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged variations of any one species are the descendants of that species..

[

Okay....just to make you happy Seg, this one's for you. Just so you can't say I'm taking things out of context. Here's the whole paragraph where my quote came from.

“This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt errors will have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting to good authorities alone. I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts, with references, on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done.

I much regret that want of space prevents my having the satisfaction of acknowledging the generous assistance which I have received from very many naturalists, some of them personally unknown to me. I cannot, however, let this opportunity pass without expressing my deep obligations to Dr Hooker, who for the last fifteen years has aided me in every possible way by his large stores of knowledge and his excellent judgement.”

And I took the liberty of posting the whole section from where your quote came from.

No one ought to feel surprise at much remaining as yet unexplained in regard to the origin of species and varieties, if he makes due allowance for our profound ignorance in regard to the mutual relations of all the beings which live around us. Who can explain why one species ranges widely and is very numerous, and why another allied species has a narrow range and is rare? Yet these relations are of the highest importance, for they determine the present welfare, and, as I believe, the future success and modification of every inhabitant of this world. Still less do we know of the mutual relations of the innumerable inhabitants of the world during the many past geological epochs in its history. Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgement of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained -- namely, that each species has been independently created -- is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification

And see?....I got them from your own fave site.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/introduction.html

I still maintain that Darwin questioned his own theory. In fact he wavered....and considered "design."

Now I don't want to hijack this thread....so let me make another thread solely for Mr Darwin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still maintain that Darwin questioned his own theory. In fact he wavered....and considered "design."

To me, religious people are quite right to firmly warn that questioning in order to fill the gap that separates a belief from a certainty is to be avoided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And see?....I got them from your own fave site.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/introduction.html

I still maintain that Darwin questioned his own theory. In fact he wavered....and considered "design."

Now I don't want to hijack this thread....so let me make another thread solely for Mr Darwin.

Which is why the scientific method of discovery by building knowledge from the ground up, is better than the religious revelation method of claiming to have the answers already, and then having to backtrack, re-interpret, or as in the case of creationists -- just flat out refuse to acknowledge contrary evidence. Your "evidence" only proves that Darwin engaged in the study of nature as a scientist should - with an open mind.

If Darwin was writing today, 150 years after Origin of the Species, and was aware of the DNA molecule as the agent of replication, genomic analysis of related species of animals, endogenous retroviruses that are often shared by related species, broken DNA sequences that remain in the genome etc. -- where do you think he would stand today? For creationism or evolution by natural selection! This lame creationist propaganda that keeps harping on Darwin, ignores the fact that the discovery of genetics revolutionized evolutionary theory, so that the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory sees most of the change (if not all) going on at the level of genetic replicators within the organism, and not at the species level itself. This was something Darwin had no awareness of, which has been mentioned many times before to no affect -- and many of the mysteries of Darwin's time have been cleared up by the modern understanding of genetics.

Since I'm on a role here, I want to introduce my favourite conclusive proof of evolution that creationism can't answer (I hope Segnosaur hasn't already covered this): Endogenous Retrovirsues

While listening to a podcast series on evolution by Dr. Zachary Moore a couple of years ago, called Evolution 101; Dr. Zach did a six part series on genomic analysis, particularily Junk DNA. Creationists and I.D.'rs try to dismiss DNA similarities of related species with lame excuses like "maybe God decided to use a similar blueprint for chimpanzees and humans" or some other half-assed explanation. So, among the junk DNA (non-coding genes) that make up 96% of the human genome, the one that caught my attention were endogenous retroviruses or ERV's.

ERV's come from viral infections that manage to pass to a newly fertilized egg cell during the fertilization stage, inserting their own DNA code into the genome of the host organism. If the host survives and grows to adulthood, its descendents will carry that foreign viral DNA in their genomes, although the viral sequences are likely non-coding as soon as they pass from one generation to the next. Dead viral DNA sequences make up 7% of the total human genome, so a lot of our genetic makeup is actually from foreign contaminants. Why would God use viruses to build the human DNA blueprint?

If humans and chimpanzees did not evolve from a common ancestor as creationists claim, we should not expect to find common ERV's between our species. Instead, as this chart reprinted in Talkorigins shows, there are at least 11 ERV's, many of which are shared by all primates, that are in both the human, gorilla and chimpanzee genomes. So why would God choose to code the same viral DNA sequences into two different organisms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why the scientific method of discovery by building knowledge from the ground up, is better than the religious revelation method of claiming to have the answers already, and then having to backtrack, re-interpret, or as in the case of creationists -- just flat out refuse to acknowledge contrary evidence.

What you decry about the "religious method" is also necessary to the scientific method: assuming axioms in order to make deductions and maintaining some variables constants to learn about other ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still maintain that Darwin questioned his own theory. In fact he wavered....and considered "design."

Now I don't want to hijack this thread....so let me make another thread solely for Mr Darwin.

Who better to question one's theory than oneself? The only way to test the theory is to throw the questions at it. But you have all the answers already .. correct Betsy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who better to question one's theory than oneself? The only way to test the theory is to throw the questions at it. But you have all the answers already .. correct Betsy?

The main point is that one cannot question everything all at once. Science calls this aspect of their method ceteris paribus and religion calls it obedience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you decry about the "religious method" is also necessary to the scientific method: assuming axioms in order to make deductions and maintaining some variables constants to learn about other ones.

Every method of understanding is going to contain a few a priori assumptions. The philosophy of science has to assume that humans are capable of understanding the world, otherwise there's no point to bother trying to learn anything. The assumptions that scientific discovery began with are subject to testing and revision if better explanations become available. It is the only method of discovery that contains a built in self-correction mechanism, unlike religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every method of understanding is going to contain a few a priori assumptions. The philosophy of science has to assume that humans are capable of understanding the world, otherwise there's no point to bother trying to learn anything. The assumptions that scientific discovery began with are subject to testing and revision if better explanations become available. It is the only method of discovery that contains a built in self-correction mechanism, unlike religion.

Religion, not science, is the only method of discovery that contains a built in self-correction mechanism. A religious person has to obey and therefore can only deals with his self-resistance subjectively. The subjectivity in science is what makes objective progress impossible.

Edited by benny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion, not science, is the only method of discovery that contains a built in self-correction mechanism. A religious person has to obey and therefore can only deals with his self-resistance subjectively. The subjectivity in science is what makes objective progress impossible.

LOL-tastic. The only self correctiion that is taking place among religions is admitting they were wrong and adjust their worldview to match what science has delievered as undisputable fact.

A religious person does not have to obey. But if they want to please their god, then they will do so willingly. No one 'has' to do 'anything'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL-tastic. The only self correctiion that is taking place among religions is admitting they were wrong and adjust their worldview to match what science has delievered as undisputable fact.

A religious person does not have to obey. But if they want to please their god, then they will do so willingly. No one 'has' to do 'anything'.

The only self-correction that is sound is admitting the Original Sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only self-correction that is sound is admitting the Original Sin.

I don't see the scientific logic in your statement. And when you are agnostic, sin is really a non-issue. However, as an agnostic, I have values and morals grown into me by my awesome parents. So don't expect me to go on a rampage killing people in the name of a non-god.

One thing I will add here are Born Again Christians.... You cannot be delivered to god untill you are born again.... I feel sorry for those Christians who got it right the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion, not science, is the only method of discovery that contains a built in self-correction mechanism. A religious person has to obey and therefore can only deals with his self-resistance subjectively. The subjectivity in science is what makes objective progress impossible.

Totally irrelevant since the strength of objective standards is that they allow an independent comparison that is not dependent on our own subjective sense of ourselves and the world around us -- both of which can be errant and even subject to delusion. When someone who is mentally, such as a schizophrenic, finally reaches the stage where they are able to accept critical opinions of others, they are finally aware that they cannot put all of their trust in their own perceptions and beliefs.

The main problem with religious truth is that it is presented as revelation, somehow having all of the answers already when it is first learned. The power of dogma rests in the confidence that adherents have in it. And that's why it cannot be self-correcting! Every revision or alteration can potentially call into question the rest of the dogmatic assumptions made by the religious organization. So there is a strong incentive to resist new knowledge from outside of the dogma, even violently.

The scientific method begins with a few basic a priori assumptions of the world and a method for determining reliable from unreliable information, to continually progress towards greater understanding. So it's no surprise that a point in history would arrive where religion and science bumped into each other. First with the theory of a heliocentric solar system, and then with the theory of evolution. In both cases, religious authorities divided on how to address the challenges.

The more liberal leaders decided to try to accomodate and try to incorporate the new science, whereas the hardliners dug in their heels, and in the case of evolution, are still digging in their heels, rejecting evolutionary theory while neglecting to create their own testable creation theories. They are in the end, enemies of science and learning, since both Christian and Muslim fundamentalists have chosen to attack science and academia, and weaken the education standards for their own children, so that literal interpretations of their religious mythology will be carried on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scientists have recently learnt that getting at an objective reality is impossible. Religious people never stop repeating that it should not have being attempted. Religious consciousness (sudden revelation) is this subjective distance from the projects (science being one of them) generated by our hubris.

Edited by benny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scientists have recently learnt that getting at an objective reality is impossible.

Especially from people like you who have no capacity to be objective.

Religious people never stop repeating that it should not have being attempted.

Yeah this has been going on for some time, like centuries. I don't expect our growth and understanding of the universe et al to end anytime soon.

Religious consciousness (sudden revelation) is this subjective distance from the projects (science being one of them) generated by our hubris.

I have a sudden revelation about you at the moment. I know some posters are having the same revelation. You MUST be the Messiah?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,753
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Matthew
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Venandi earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • DUI_Offender went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...