Why I Don't Believe In Atheism's Creation Myth

[Agonaces of Susa]

Sorry but we require an answer better than, "Magic man done it".

No you don't.

What caused the Big Bang? Magic?

What caused the first inorganic molecule to become a living organism? Magic?

How come massive objects don't fall on eachother by their gravity? Magic man?

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by Agonaces of Susa
Yes indeed.

I know the origin of cells and He was an intelligent designer.

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." -- Genesis 1:11

"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good." -- Genesis 1:12

Sorry but we require an answer better than, "Magic man done it".

it almost appears you are holding hoops up and stating that Susa is not jumping high enough. :o

 

[Pete Harcoff]

i apologized...missed that one...no, i have not read it in its entirety.

How much of it have you read? Because if you're leveling all this criticism at Darwin's writings, it be a little amiss not to have read it first.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

"And God said"

Means what, exactly? Does the designer have speech organs (lungs, vocal chords, teeth etc), and does it use those to produce sound waves?

No? Thought so. The metaphor means what then?

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
i apologized...missed that one...no, i have not read it in its entirety.

How much of it have you read? Because if you're leveling all this criticism at Darwin's writings, it be a little amiss not to have read it first.

you do realize his writings have been put on the dusty shelf of antiquity? It's lost any credibility it once had. Nevertheless, give me a solid reason i should read it.

thank you.

thinkin' on this.....is there a thread here that discusses that book? i'd check it out.

 

[Nathan Poe]

you do realize his writings have been put on the dusty shelf of antiquity? It's lost any credibility it once had. Nevertheless, give me a solid reason i should read it.

1. History -- Origin of Species might not be terribly useful to modern biology, but it's interesting enough to see where we stood once upon a time.

2. If you're going to rail against Darwin, wouldn't it at least be useful to know what the man actually said and did? Or is that irrelevant?

3. Not everything old is necessarily useless -- *cough*Bible*cough*

 

[brinny]

1. History -- Origin of Species might not be terribly useful to modern biology, but it's interesting enough to see where we stood once upon a time.

2. If you're going to rail against Darwin, wouldn't it at least be useful to know what the man actually said and did? Or is that irrelevant?

3. Not everything old is necessarily useless -- *cough*Bible*cough*

Darwin angers me because the more i read about him, the angrier i get that he had such a following that were just as misguided as he was....

but i will give it a fair shot...no it's not irrelevant to check out his book...i don't have a problem with that....

i don't have the book....is there a thread on site that perhaps does discuss his book?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

you do realize his writings have been put on the dusty shelf of antiquity? It's lost any credibility it once had. Nevertheless, give me a solid reason i should read it.

Because you are criticizing it and making claims like, "it's lost any credibility it once had". If you haven't read it, then your claims are specious at best and thoroughly disingenuous at worst. The only credibility at stake is your own.

If you want to read it, the whole thing is online here. Just to warn you, it can be a tough slog given the writing style. But if you are planning to criticize Darwin, at the very least, read what he's written.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
you do realize his writings have been put on the dusty shelf of antiquity? It's lost any credibility it once had. Nevertheless, give me a solid reason i should read it.

Because you are criticizing it and making claims like, "it's lost any credibility it once had". If you haven't read it, then your claims are specious at best and thoroughly disingenuous at worst. The only credibility at stake is your own.

If you want to read it, the whole thing is online here. Just to warn you, it can be a tough slog given the writing style. But if you are planning to criticize Darwin, at the very least, read what he's written.

are you saying it IS credible? And thank you. I'll check out the link.

 

[Ayersy]

Darwin angers me because the more i read about him, the angrier i get that he had such a following that were just as misguided as he was....

Now you know how alot of atheists feel...

 

[Pete Harcoff]

are you saying it IS credible? And thank you. I'll check out the link.

You're welcome.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "credible". Darwin wasn't out to deliberately defraud people, if that's what you are thinking. He was an early pioneer in a new field of biology. Some stuff he got right (i.e. natural selection) and some stuff he got wrong (i.e. blending of discrete traits). In that regard he's no more or less credible than many other similar scientists (Lyell, Newton, Bohr, etc).

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
are you saying it IS credible? And thank you. I'll check out the link.

You're welcome.

I'm entirely sure what you mean by "credible". Darwin wasn't out to deliberately defraud people, if that's what you are thinking. He was an early pioneer in a new field of biology. Some stuff he got right (i.e. natural selection) and some stuff he got wrong (i.e. blending of discrete traits). In that regard he's no more or less credible than many other similar scientists (Lyell, Newton, Bohr, etc).

would you advise that one takes some of what he professed with a grain of salt, then?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

would you advise that one takes some of what he professed with a grain of salt, then?

Only given the historical context and the fact we've obviously learned a lot more about evolution in the 150 years since Darwin's time. Like I said, he got some stuff right and some stuff wrong, no different than most other scientists.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
would you advise that one takes some of what he professed with a grain of salt, then?

Only given the historical context and the fact we've obviously learned a lot more about evolution in the 150 years since Darwin's time. Like I said, he got some stuff right and some stuff wrong, no different than most other scientists.

fair enough. thank you.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Darwin angers me because the more i read about him, the angrier i get that he had such a following that were just as misguided as he was....

See? you don't even know what he wrote, and you're already "angry" about how "misguided" he was.

If you haven't read his stuff, then where have you been getting your info about him?

Other creationists?

but i will give it a fair shot...no it's not irrelevant to check out his book...i don't have a problem with that....

Fair warning -- most of it is pretty dull.

i don't have the book....is there a thread on site that perhaps does discuss his book?

I'm sure there are several -- but I suspect the creo/evo debating in them would be at its harshest.

How about a link to the text itself?

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

 

[Nathan Poe]

would you advise that one takes some of what he professed with a grain of salt, then?

I'd say take what anyone professes with a grain of salt (and, if applicable, a slice of lime and shot of tequila.)

But yes, bear in mind that Darwin was writing in 1859, and basing what he wrote on his observations and knowledge consistent with what we knew as of 1859.

Needless to say, we've learned a lot since then.

 

[brinny]

See? you don't even know what he wrote, and you're already "angry" about how "misguided" he was.

If you haven't read his stuff, then where have you been getting your info about him?

Other creationists?



Fair warning -- most of it is pretty dull.



I'm sure there are several -- but I suspect the creo/evo debating in them would be at its harshest.

How about a link to the text itself?

Literature.org - The Online Literature Libraryhttp://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

thank you for the link. Just wondering....at least one scientist said that modern science has no serious regard for Darwin. Is that true?

 

[Skaloop]

thank you for the link. Just wondering....at least one scientist said that modern science has no serious regard for Darwin. Is that true?

Do you have the name of the scientist and a quote of what he/she actually said (in context)?

Anyway, if one scientist said it, that's just one scientist. I would suspect, if this is actually a real scientist in a relevant field, that what is meant is that because Darwin wrote 150 years ago, the developments since then have rendered him obsolete for modern, cutting-edge evolutionary research. Darwin's influence on modern evolution is more historical now that we have advanced so far in our understanding of biology.

 

[sfs]

thank you for the link. Just wondering....at least one scientist said that modern science has no serious regard for Darwin. Is that true?

He's highly respected as a great scientist(*). His work no longer has any direct relevance as science, however -- too much water under the bridge since then, however great his insights.

(*) From what I've read of him, he also seems to have been a decent and thoughtful person.

By the way, I'd still like to know what inaccurate assumptions I made in my earlier post.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Contrary to what a lot of people believe, Darwin did not invent the theory of evolution. All he did was add one idea -- natural selection -- as the mechanism for how evolution happened. He took an idea that already existed and added something new to it.

That's how all science works, basically: you take what the guy before you wrote, you douoble check it to see if it works, and if it does, you add something new to it, and if it doesn't, you toss it out and replace it with something that does.

That's all Darwin did in 1859. Since then, scientists have been doing it to Darwin... and then doing it to the people who did it to Darwin, and then doing it to the people who did it to the people... et cetera, et cetera, you get the idea.

So, you tell me -- how important is Charles Darwin himself except as a whipping-boy for creationists?