| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
13 Apr 2006 12:52:36 PM |
| Object: |
Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
Research Journal (v29, #2) on how Darwin's atheism/materialism
influenced his writing more than actual science did. Also revealing is
how his ambiguous God references in his books - often pointed to as
'proof' he never abandoned theism - were simply there so he
wouldn't insult friends and his wife. The article won't be on their
website for awhile, but its worth getting a copy if you don't
subscribe. Darwin's own writings admit that he lied in early works
about a belief in God. So from the very beginning it seems that
Darwinism wasn't based on science, but on religion, in this case
atheism.
Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of
Charles Darwin Bill Johnson Christian Research Journal (v29,#2)
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Synopsis
During the 19th century Charles Darwin introduced his theory of
evolution by natural selection. His goal was to show that life was not
the result of divine intervention, but the work of blind naturalistic
processes. Darwin claimed to have arrived at the this truth working
strictly with the facts apart from any preconceived ideas, and this is
exactly how most people today perceive Darwinism. Dissenters have
argued that Darwin is not science, but that Darwin superimposed an
atheistic/materialistic worldview on nature, then searched for the
facts to support his theory. Darwinians responded that Darwin's own
writings show that he was not an atheist, but always believed in some
form of deity. A careful study of Darwin's writings, especially his
posthumously published private notebooks and personal communication,
reveals that Darwin was indeed an atheist and his theory of natural
selection was formulated to replace a creator with naturalistic
processes.
.
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
13 Apr 2006 04:03:04 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote in
news:1144950756.050852.257850@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
Research Journal (v29, #2) on how Darwin's atheism/materialism
influenced his writing more than actual science did. Also revealing is
1. Citing some pack of lies does your case absolutely no good.
2. Citing it in support of an argumentum ad hominem fallacy (of the
classical variety) does your case even LESS good.
Is that all you have?
Where is your scientific theory of creation? How can we test it, using
the scientific method?
What is clearly an oxymoron is using the word "Christian" in connection
with these kinds of apologetics!
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David H." |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
13 Apr 2006 03:10:05 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote in message
news:1144950756.050852.257850@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
Darwin was not a god. He was a scientist. We do not worship him; we
mention his name a lot because he was the one who put it all together
and produced the ToE, (which is confirmed over and over every single
day).
You attack Darwin because you perceive him to be some sort of god to
us. He is not. The theory he produced, and the *facts* it points out,
are a direct threat to your silly beliefs. Knowledge displaces
mysticism. You can't have that, can you?
Well, ***** you and your jesus/mary/mohammed/thor/insert-god-here.
David H.
#2217
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
13 Apr 2006 07:13:16 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "David H."
<davidhaapala@sbcglobal.fart.not.net> posting the following on Thu, 13
Apr 2006 20:10:05 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Darwin was not a god. He was a scientist. We do not worship him; we
mention his name a lot because he was the one who put it all together
and produced the ToE, (which is confirmed over and over every single
day).
You attack Darwin because you perceive him to be some sort of god to
us. He is not. The theory he produced, and the *facts* it points out,
are a direct threat to your silly beliefs. Knowledge displaces
mysticism. You can't have that, can you?
Well, ***** you and your jesus/mary/mohammed/thor/insert-god-here.
It's the only name they know. It's like people who are ignorant of
physics often mention Einstein.
I swear, I've mentioned Watson and Crick to some of these bleaters and
gotten nothing but blank stares.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
13 Apr 2006 11:31:28 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and "David H."
<davidhaapala@sbcglobal.fart.not.net> posting the following on Thu, 13
Apr 2006 20:10:05 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Darwin was not a god. He was a scientist. We do not worship him; we
mention his name a lot because he was the one who put it all together
and produced the ToE, (which is confirmed over and over every single
day).
You attack Darwin because you perceive him to be some sort of god to
us. He is not. The theory he produced, and the *facts* it points out,
are a direct threat to your silly beliefs. Knowledge displaces
mysticism. You can't have that, can you?
Well, ***** you and your jesus/mary/mohammed/thor/insert-god-here.
It's the only name they know. It's like people who are ignorant of
physics often mention Einstein.
You're right about that.
A lot of kooks, unable to understand modern physics (mind you, I don't
blame them; it's not easy stuff) try to take on Einstein because he's
well known.
Just take a look at these :
http://www.crank.net/einstein.html
A lot of them don't give a flying ***** about Heisenberg, Plank, Niels
Bohr, etc.
Olrik
I swear, I've mentioned Watson and Crick to some of these bleaters and
gotten nothing but blank stares.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harris" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
13 Apr 2006 03:32:36 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote in news:1144950756.050852.257850
@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
Research Journal (v29, #2) on how Darwin's atheism/materialism
influenced his writing more than actual science did. Also revealing is
how his ambiguous God references in his books - often pointed to as
'proof' he never abandoned theism - were simply there so he
wouldn't insult friends and his wife. The article won't be on their
website for awhile, but its worth getting a copy if you don't
subscribe. Darwin's own writings admit that he lied in early works
about a belief in God. So from the very beginning it seems that
Darwinism wasn't based on science, but on religion, in this case
atheism.
Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of
Charles Darwin Bill Johnson Christian Research Journal (v29,#2)
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Synopsis
During the 19th century Charles Darwin introduced his theory of
evolution by natural selection. His goal was to show that life was not
the result of divine intervention, but the work of blind naturalistic
processes. Darwin claimed to have arrived at the this truth working
strictly with the facts apart from any preconceived ideas, and this is
exactly how most people today perceive Darwinism. Dissenters have
argued that Darwin is not science, but that Darwin superimposed an
atheistic/materialistic worldview on nature, then searched for the
facts to support his theory. Darwinians responded that Darwin's own
writings show that he was not an atheist, but always believed in some
form of deity. A careful study of Darwin's writings, especially his
posthumously published private notebooks and personal communication,
reveals that Darwin was indeed an atheist and his theory of natural
selection was formulated to replace a creator with naturalistic
processes.
This is a "sci.*" newsgroup. It is not of religious content. Persisting in posting such messages with
other peoples' quotations, probably without their permission, and not replying to anyone, ever, is a
clear attempt to spam this newsgroup and harass its users. It is curious that you cross-post these
messages to "alt.atheist" but never to "alt.religion" or smoething. This tactic is unethical, meaningless
and probably illegal, unless this attempt is in agreement with those specific publishers.
--
Harris
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
13 Apr 2006 01:01:49 PM |
|
|
In article <1144950756.050852.257850@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> writes:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
Research Journal (v29, #2) on how Darwin's atheism/materialism
influenced his writing more than actual science did. Also revealing is
how his ambiguous God references in his books - often pointed to as
'proof' he never abandoned theism - were simply there so he
wouldn't insult friends and his wife. The article won't be on their
website for awhile, but its worth getting a copy if you don't
subscribe. Darwin's own writings admit that he lied in early works
about a belief in God. So from the very beginning it seems that
Darwinism wasn't based on science, but on religion, in this case
atheism.
Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of
Charles Darwin Bill Johnson Christian Research Journal (v29,#2)
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Synopsis
During the 19th century Charles Darwin introduced his theory of
evolution by natural selection. His goal was to show that life was not
the result of divine intervention, but the work of blind naturalistic
processes. Darwin claimed to have arrived at the this truth working
strictly with the facts apart from any preconceived ideas, and this is
exactly how most people today perceive Darwinism. Dissenters have
argued that Darwin is not science, but that Darwin superimposed an
atheistic/materialistic worldview on nature, then searched for the
facts to support his theory.
Darwinians responded that Darwin's own
writings show that he was not an atheist, but always believed in some
form of deity. A careful study of Darwin's writings, especially his
posthumously published private notebooks and personal communication,
reveals that Darwin was indeed an atheist and his theory of natural
selection was formulated to replace a creator with naturalistic
processes.
Cart. Horse. *****-backwards.
Darwin, who had studied to be a minister, was early on most devout,
so much so that his knee-jerk naivete cause mirth among the sailors
aboard the Darwin.
Observing nature, combined with personal life experiences, changed his
mind.
I never cease to be astonished by those who MUST find a way to
discredit evolution, by whatever means necessary.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Dean" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
13 Apr 2006 02:15:41 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:e1m3md$5id$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1144950756.050852.257850@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Sound
of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> writes:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
Research Journal (v29, #2) on how Darwin's atheism/materialism
influenced his writing more than actual science did. Also revealing is
how his ambiguous God references in his books - often pointed to as
'proof' he never abandoned theism - were simply there so he
wouldn't insult friends and his wife. The article won't be on their
website for awhile, but its worth getting a copy if you don't
subscribe. Darwin's own writings admit that he lied in early works
about a belief in God. So from the very beginning it seems that
Darwinism wasn't based on science, but on religion, in this case
atheism.
Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of
Charles Darwin Bill Johnson Christian Research Journal (v29,#2)
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Synopsis
During the 19th century Charles Darwin introduced his theory of
evolution by natural selection. His goal was to show that life was not
the result of divine intervention, but the work of blind naturalistic
processes. Darwin claimed to have arrived at the this truth working
strictly with the facts apart from any preconceived ideas, and this is
exactly how most people today perceive Darwinism. Dissenters have
argued that Darwin is not science, but that Darwin superimposed an
atheistic/materialistic worldview on nature, then searched for the
facts to support his theory.
Darwinians responded that Darwin's own
writings show that he was not an atheist, but always believed in some
form of deity. A careful study of Darwin's writings, especially his
posthumously published private notebooks and personal communication,
reveals that Darwin was indeed an atheist and his theory of natural
selection was formulated to replace a creator with naturalistic
processes.
Cart. Horse. *****-backwards.
Darwin, who had studied to be a minister, was early on most devout,
so much so that his knee-jerk naivete cause mirth among the sailors
aboard the Darwin.
Darwin was a ner' do well that had failed to the point that his father
advised and encouraged him, as a last resort to become a minister.
This was not Darwin's first choice. He rather shoot birds. But
to his credit he found a bird he had shot the previous day, still
alive and he felt ill at the suffering he had visited upon the poor
creature. This changed the man for the better.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
13 Apr 2006 02:29:11 PM |
|
|
In article <Aox%f.263$iB2.210@bignews4.bellsouth.net> "R. Dean" <rdean@bellsouth.net> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:e1m3md$5id$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1144950756.050852.257850@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Sound
of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> writes:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
Research Journal (v29, #2) on how Darwin's atheism/materialism
influenced his writing more than actual science did. Also revealing is
how his ambiguous God references in his books - often pointed to as
'proof' he never abandoned theism - were simply there so he
wouldn't insult friends and his wife. The article won't be on their
website for awhile, but its worth getting a copy if you don't
subscribe. Darwin's own writings admit that he lied in early works
about a belief in God. So from the very beginning it seems that
Darwinism wasn't based on science, but on religion, in this case
atheism.
Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of
Charles Darwin Bill Johnson Christian Research Journal (v29,#2)
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Synopsis
During the 19th century Charles Darwin introduced his theory of
evolution by natural selection. His goal was to show that life was not
the result of divine intervention, but the work of blind naturalistic
processes. Darwin claimed to have arrived at the this truth working
strictly with the facts apart from any preconceived ideas, and this is
exactly how most people today perceive Darwinism. Dissenters have
argued that Darwin is not science, but that Darwin superimposed an
atheistic/materialistic worldview on nature, then searched for the
facts to support his theory.
Darwinians responded that Darwin's own
writings show that he was not an atheist, but always believed in some
form of deity. A careful study of Darwin's writings, especially his
posthumously published private notebooks and personal communication,
reveals that Darwin was indeed an atheist and his theory of natural
selection was formulated to replace a creator with naturalistic
processes.
Cart. Horse. *****-backwards.
Darwin, who had studied to be a minister, was early on most devout,
so much so that his knee-jerk naivete cause mirth among the sailors
aboard the Darwin.
Darwin was a ner' do well that had failed to the point that his father
advised and encouraged him, as a last resort to become a minister.
This was not Darwin's first choice. He rather shoot birds.
Yes, I had been aware that he wasn't exactly Mr All-Nighter when
it came to his studies. And that being an English country
parson didn't necessarily involve the degree of fervor it
takes to be a door-to-door proselytizer.
But to his credit he found a bird he had shot the previous day, still
alive and he felt ill at the suffering he had visited upon the poor
creature. This changed the man for the better.
That one I had not heard. Thank you.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "S2" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
13 Apr 2006 01:52:51 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1144950756.050852.257850@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> writes:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
Research Journal (v29, #2) on how Darwin's atheism/materialism
influenced his writing more than actual science did. Also revealing is
how his ambiguous God references in his books - often pointed to as
'proof' he never abandoned theism - were simply there so he
wouldn't insult friends and his wife. The article won't be on their
website for awhile, but its worth getting a copy if you don't
subscribe. Darwin's own writings admit that he lied in early works
about a belief in God. So from the very beginning it seems that
Darwinism wasn't based on science, but on religion, in this case
atheism.
Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of
Charles Darwin Bill Johnson Christian Research Journal (v29,#2)
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Synopsis
During the 19th century Charles Darwin introduced his theory of
evolution by natural selection. His goal was to show that life was not
the result of divine intervention, but the work of blind naturalistic
processes. Darwin claimed to have arrived at the this truth working
strictly with the facts apart from any preconceived ideas, and this is
exactly how most people today perceive Darwinism. Dissenters have
argued that Darwin is not science, but that Darwin superimposed an
atheistic/materialistic worldview on nature, then searched for the
facts to support his theory.
Darwinians responded that Darwin's own
writings show that he was not an atheist, but always believed in some
form of deity. A careful study of Darwin's writings, especially his
posthumously published private notebooks and personal communication,
reveals that Darwin was indeed an atheist and his theory of natural
selection was formulated to replace a creator with naturalistic
processes.
Cart. Horse. *****-backwards.
Darwin, who had studied to be a minister, was early on most devout,
so much so that his knee-jerk naivete cause mirth among the sailors
aboard the Darwin.
Observing nature, combined with personal life experiences, changed his
mind.
I never cease to be astonished by those who MUST find a way to
discredit evolution, by whatever means necessary.
-- cary
Natural selection is not entirely the invention of Darwin. By now it
has been skeptically reviewed by various spcialities within the
scientific community. DNA evidence, fossil records, zoological
catagorization and other research have so boosted the theory that it
remains one of the most enduring of theories since the 19th century.
It is a stark contrast to theories from the same period such as Freud's
theories (like penis envy, or the Oedipus Complex) that have not stood
the test of time.
To argue against natural selection on a religious basis shows a
stubbornness in the nature of the paradigm (systems of thought) the
religious person holds. It is interesting to note that there are xians
who can handle shifts in previously held beliefs to include new ideas.
An example of this was the Church accepting a heliotropic view of the
solar system. Those who subscribe to rigid pardigms certainly should
examine the disadvantages of this choice.
S.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
13 Apr 2006 02:26:59 PM |
|
|
In article <1144954370.959787.229210@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> "S2" <buttsplicer@gmail.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1144950756.050852.257850@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> writes:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
Research Journal (v29, #2) on how Darwin's atheism/materialism
influenced his writing more than actual science did. Also revealing is
how his ambiguous God references in his books - often pointed to as
'proof' he never abandoned theism - were simply there so he
wouldn't insult friends and his wife. The article won't be on their
website for awhile, but its worth getting a copy if you don't
subscribe. Darwin's own writings admit that he lied in early works
about a belief in God. So from the very beginning it seems that
Darwinism wasn't based on science, but on religion, in this case
atheism.
Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of
Charles Darwin Bill Johnson Christian Research Journal (v29,#2)
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Synopsis
During the 19th century Charles Darwin introduced his theory of
evolution by natural selection. His goal was to show that life was not
the result of divine intervention, but the work of blind naturalistic
processes. Darwin claimed to have arrived at the this truth working
strictly with the facts apart from any preconceived ideas, and this is
exactly how most people today perceive Darwinism. Dissenters have
argued that Darwin is not science, but that Darwin superimposed an
atheistic/materialistic worldview on nature, then searched for the
facts to support his theory.
Darwinians responded that Darwin's own
writings show that he was not an atheist, but always believed in some
form of deity. A careful study of Darwin's writings, especially his
posthumously published private notebooks and personal communication,
reveals that Darwin was indeed an atheist and his theory of natural
selection was formulated to replace a creator with naturalistic
processes.
Cart. Horse. *****-backwards.
Darwin, who had studied to be a minister, was early on most devout,
so much so that his knee-jerk naivete cause mirth among the sailors
aboard the Darwin.
Observing nature, combined with personal life experiences, changed his
mind.
I never cease to be astonished by those who MUST find a way to
discredit evolution, by whatever means necessary.
-- cary
Natural selection is not entirely the invention of Darwin. By now it
has been skeptically reviewed by various spcialities within the
scientific community. DNA evidence, fossil records, zoological
catagorization and other research have so boosted the theory that it
remains one of the most enduring of theories since the 19th century.
It is a stark contrast to theories from the same period such as Freud's
theories (like penis envy, or the Oedipus Complex) that have not stood
the test of time.
To argue against natural selection on a religious basis shows a
stubbornness in the nature of the paradigm (systems of thought) the
religious person holds. It is interesting to note that there are xians
who can handle shifts in previously held beliefs to include new ideas.
An example of this was the Church accepting a heliotropic view of the
solar system. Those who subscribe to rigid pardigms certainly should
examine the disadvantages of this choice.
Hell, I just attended a four-lecture series by one of the most
noted paleontologists and writers on evolution of our day,
Simon Conway Morris (of Burgess shale fame). A significant
portion of his last lecture revolved about his belief in Christianity.
He came across as quite aimable and pleasant, even when talking
about issues which I happened to know had involved much vitriol
amongst certain notables in the field. Nonetheless, he came
very close to open contempt whenever he mentioned creationism
in general and Intelligent Design in particular.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
14 Apr 2006 12:54:44 AM |
|
|
In article <1144950756.050852.257850@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
Research Journal (v29, #2)
Hardly a reliable source.
on how Darwin's atheism/materialism
influenced his writing more than actual science did.
Nonsense. Read his works as I have. They contain sound science based on
valid evidence.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
14 Apr 2006 04:37:14 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-C709C1.22544413042006@news.giganews.com...
In article <1144950756.050852.257850@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
Research Journal (v29, #2)
Hardly a reliable source.
on how Darwin's atheism/materialism
influenced his writing more than actual science did.
Nonsense. Read his works as I have. They contain sound science based on
valid evidence.
Um, can you quote just one thing from his "theory" Origin of Species that is
sound science & based on valid evidence, and that isn't a simple opinion
based on his general ideas and personal anecdotal observations?
if so please quote and reference here >>
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
15 Apr 2006 02:23:54 AM |
|
|
In article <opydndQzVNPW8KLZnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@inspired.net.au>,
"Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-C709C1.22544413042006@news.giganews.com...
In article <1144950756.050852.257850@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
Research Journal (v29, #2)
Hardly a reliable source.
on how Darwin's atheism/materialism
influenced his writing more than actual science did.
Nonsense. Read his works as I have. They contain sound science based on
valid evidence.
Um, can you quote just one thing from his "theory" Origin of Species that is
sound science & based on valid evidence, and that isn't a simple opinion
based on his general ideas and personal anecdotal observations?
if so please quote and reference here >>
Isn't that how science works? Idea, hypothesis, observation, analysis of
result., theory.
The validity of Darwin's theory is that it has stood the test of time.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
15 Apr 2006 04:41:41 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-BF3AF7.00235415042006@news.giganews.com...
In article <opydndQzVNPW8KLZnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@inspired.net.au>,
"Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-C709C1.22544413042006@news.giganews.com...
In article <1144950756.050852.257850@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
Research Journal (v29, #2)
Hardly a reliable source.
on how Darwin's atheism/materialism
influenced his writing more than actual science did.
Nonsense. Read his works as I have. They contain sound science based on
valid evidence.
Um, can you quote just one thing from his "theory" Origin of Species that
is
sound science & based on valid evidence, and that isn't a simple opinion
based on his general ideas and personal anecdotal observations?
if so please quote and reference here >>
Isn't that how science works? Idea, hypothesis, observation, analysis of
result., theory.
The validity of Darwin's theory is that it has stood the test of time.
On that basis Jesus is God because that idea has stood the test of time much
longer than Darwins ideas.
Noted again, no quote or reference ...... oh well.
You wanna have another go at a valid reason to accept a scientific theory as
being proven? ;-)
But again, I simply point out i am NOT talking about the last 150 years, but
Darwin's OOS specifically ..... can anyone show me where that long waffling
saga meets the definition of sound science and that it was based on solid
evidence?
It's a simple question, really. Nothing to do with 2006, or standing the
test of time. Is it a valid example of sound science?
I don't think it is. Newton and Eienstien and Marconi are examples of sound
science imho. Idea, hypothesis, observation, experiment/math, analysis of
result., postulate theory, publish WITH supporting documentation of
evidence/facts. That's a sound theory.
Darwin was mmmmmm, other peoples ideas, observations, giant leap theory,
write a book longer than Gone with the Wind with no supporting
documentation. .................... that's science?????
I find that conclusion more than odd. But whatever. <smile>
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
16 Apr 2006 02:15:55 AM |
|
|
In article <mr2dnajHScNKIt3ZnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@inspired.net.au>,
"Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-BF3AF7.00235415042006@news.giganews.com...
In article <opydndQzVNPW8KLZnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@inspired.net.au>,
"Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-C709C1.22544413042006@news.giganews.com...
In article <1144950756.050852.257850@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
Research Journal (v29, #2)
Hardly a reliable source.
on how Darwin's atheism/materialism
influenced his writing more than actual science did.
Nonsense. Read his works as I have. They contain sound science based on
valid evidence.
Um, can you quote just one thing from his "theory" Origin of Species that
is
sound science & based on valid evidence, and that isn't a simple opinion
based on his general ideas and personal anecdotal observations?
if so please quote and reference here >>
Isn't that how science works? Idea, hypothesis, observation, analysis of
result., theory.
The validity of Darwin's theory is that it has stood the test of time.
On that basis Jesus is God because that idea has stood the test of time much
longer than Darwins ideas.
Darwin's ideas are backed by evidence, where's your evidence for your
Jesus?
Noted again, no quote or reference ...... oh well.
Read Chapter 4 "Natural Selection" A compelling argument filled with
many examples as evidence.
You wanna have another go at a valid reason to accept a scientific theory as
being proven? ;-)
Theories are not proven. They are either supported or not supported by
evidence.
You don't know much about science do you? :-)
But again, I simply point out i am NOT talking about the last 150 years, but
Darwin's OOS specifically ..... can anyone show me where that long waffling
saga meets the definition of sound science and that it was based on solid
evidence?
It was based on his own observations and observations of others. Many of
his data are described in his previous works and his notes. Nineteenth
century authors tended to be wordy.
It's a simple question, really. Nothing to do with 2006, or standing the
test of time. Is it a valid example of sound science?
Yes.
I don't think it is. Newton and Eienstien and Marconi are examples of sound
science imho. Idea, hypothesis, observation, experiment/math, analysis of
result., postulate theory, publish WITH supporting documentation of
evidence/facts. That's a sound theory.
That's the way that science was reported in Darwin's day. If he were
publishing his theory today in a journal like Nature, it would be
shorter and there would be an experimental section in which he described
his methodology.
That , however, does not invalidate Darwin's work. His important theory,
natural selection, is supported by his observations and subsequent
observations over 150 years.
Darwin was mmmmmm, other peoples ideas, observations, giant leap theory,
write a book longer than Gone with the Wind with no supporting
documentation. .................... that's science?????
Nonetheless, Darwin's theory is nearly universally accepted in science
today.
I find that conclusion more than odd. But whatever. <smile>
I find it odd that people still try to explain science using 3000 year
old books of dubious origin with NO supporting data.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stu" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
15 Apr 2006 03:09:28 PM |
|
|
On 2006-04-15 02:41:41 -0700, "Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> said:
Isn't that how science works? Idea, hypothesis, observation, analysis of
result., theory.
The validity of Darwin's theory is that it has stood the test of time.
On that basis Jesus is God because that idea has stood the test of time
much longer than Darwins ideas.
Jesus is god has not stood the test of time. Xians only comprise a
small part of the world population. Most people have rejected this
thesis. It is most a Dionysian fantasy that happens to fulfill some
psychological need in people who do not want to grow up.
Noted again, no quote or reference ...... oh well.
Of course. Quoting myth is going to only take a person so far.
You wanna have another go at a valid reason to accept a scientific
theory as being proven? ;-)
But again, I simply point out i am NOT talking about the last 150
years, but Darwin's OOS specifically ..... can anyone show me where
that long waffling saga meets the definition of sound science and that
it was based on solid evidence?
Pick: Fossil records, radiometric dating(including potassium/argon,
argon/argon, uranium series, and carbon-14 dating), DNA evidence,
zoological investigation. Quality of predictions based on evidence.
It's a simple question, really. Nothing to do with 2006, or standing
the test of time. Is it a valid example of sound science?
Yes.
I don't think it is. Newton and Eienstien and Marconi are examples of
sound science imho. Idea, hypothesis, observation, experiment/math,
analysis of result., postulate theory, publish WITH supporting
documentation of evidence/facts. That's a sound theory.
Many zoologists, geneticists, engineers, and so on have published
evidence that has been repeatable and verifiable in the last 150 years.
Perhaps it would do you good to put down the 19th century documents
and pick up something more recent.
Darwin was mmmmmm, other peoples ideas, observations, giant leap
theory, write a book longer than Gone with the Wind with no supporting
documentation. .................... that's science?????
Again, Darwin like Freud and Rutherford posited many theories in the
19th century. Notice that many of their theories did not survive
skeptical inquiry. However, many have. Natural selection is one of
them. Hell, you can observe it your self with a jar full of fruit
flies.
I find that conclusion more than odd. But whatever. <smile
What is odd, is how you can cling to medieval myths in the light of
evidence. The earth is round, it rotates around the sun, and life
evolves.
Though your own mindset suggests that not all life evolves at the same rate.
--
~Stu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
15 Apr 2006 09:47:27 PM |
|
|
"Stu" <Nospam@towel.com> wrote in message
news:2006041513092850073-Nospam@towelcom...
On 2006-04-15 02:41:41 -0700, "Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> said:
Isn't that how science works? Idea, hypothesis, observation, analysis of
result., theory.
The validity of Darwin's theory is that it has stood the test of time.
On that basis Jesus is God because that idea has stood the test of time
much longer than Darwins ideas.
Jesus is god has not stood the test of time. Xians only comprise a small
part of the world population. Most people have rejected this thesis. It
is most a Dionysian fantasy that happens to fulfill some psychological
need in people who do not want to grow up.
Yes Stu. Sure.
Christians = 1 billion
Muslims = 1 billion
Buddhists = 1 billion
other theists/supernaturalists = 1 billion
Chinese communist/athiests = 1 billion
other/impoverished starving uneducated = 1 billion
Fantasy Group = 4 billion = 66%
Communist/Athiest = 1 billion = 16%
Other/near dead irrelevant group = 1 billion = 16%
Why do folks such as yourself have to assume that anyoine in the Christian /
thiest camp automatically denies evolution or the valid aspects of darwin's
150 y.old opinions as a physical reality in the world?
Noted again, no quote or reference ...... oh well.
Of course. Quoting myth is going to only take a person so far.
the quote i'm asking for is one related to darwin and science, btw.
You wanna have another go at a valid reason to accept a scientific theory
as being proven? ;-)
But again, I simply point out i am NOT talking about the last 150 years,
but Darwin's OOS specifically ..... can anyone show me where that long
waffling saga meets the definition of sound science and that it was based
on solid evidence?
Pick: Fossil records, radiometric dating(including potassium/argon,
argon/argon, uranium series, and carbon-14 dating), DNA evidence,
zoological investigation. Quality of predictions based on evidence.
Why can;t you read and understand what I WROTE ?????
Darwin's OOS specifically <<<<<<<<<<<<
Did Darwin use "carbon dating" ?? NO
<shaking head>
It's a simple question, really. Nothing to do with 2006, or standing the
test of time. Is it a valid example of sound science?
Yes.
Hello ..... wake up ............ Darwin did not use DNA evidence to make his
case..... ;-))
I don't think it is. Newton and Eienstien and Marconi are examples of
sound science imho. Idea, hypothesis, observation, experiment/math,
analysis of result., postulate theory, publish WITH supporting
documentation of evidence/facts. That's a sound theory.
Many zoologists, geneticists, engineers, and so on have published evidence
that has been repeatable and verifiable in the last 150 years. Perhaps it
would do you good to put down the 19th century documents and pick up
something more recent.
WHY?
When the question *I* am asking is can anyone show me where Darwin actually
follows sound science and presents valid evidence for HIS theory?
Some of his HIS "guesses" may have been right after others found the
evidence, but was his documentation of his theory really **valid science**
and follow scientific principles and MO's?????
THAT is my question, if you don;t like the question tough, but that is my
question never the less.
Darwin was mmmmmm, other peoples ideas, observations, giant leap theory,
write a book longer than Gone with the Wind with no supporting
documentation. .................... that's science?????
Again, Darwin like Freud and Rutherford posited many theories in the 19th
century. Notice that many of their theories did not survive skeptical
inquiry. However, many have. Natural selection is one of them. Hell,
you can observe it your self with a jar full of fruit flies.
YES ... that's my point. "natural selection" is NOT much of THEORY is it?
Get married, have children ..... ***** the children loook like the parents
.... NOT much of a theory is it?
The species is not immutable ............... WOW like how obvious is that in
the first place?
I find that conclusion more than odd. But whatever. <smile
What is odd, is how you can cling to medieval myths in the light of
evidence. The earth is round, it rotates around the sun, and life
evolves.
Though your own mindset suggests that not all life evolves at the same
rate.
STRAW MAN ..... get over yourself, and read what I am saying and not what
you IMAGINE I am saying.
--
~Stu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stu" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
16 Apr 2006 01:15:52 PM |
|
|
On 2006-04-15 19:47:27 -0700, "Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> said:
"Stu" <Nospam@towel.com> wrote in message
news:2006041513092850073-Nospam@towelcom...
On 2006-04-15 02:41:41 -0700, "Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> said:
Isn't that how science works? Idea, hypothesis, observation, analysis of
result., theory.
The validity of Darwin's theory is that it has stood the test of time.
On that basis Jesus is God because that idea has stood the test of time
much longer than Darwins ideas.
Jesus is god has not stood the test of time. Xians only comprise a
small part of the world population. Most people have rejected this
thesis. It is most a Dionysian fantasy that happens to fulfill some
psychological need in people who do not want to grow up.
Yes Stu. Sure.
Christians = 1 billion
Muslims = 1 billion
Buddhists = 1 billion
other theists/supernaturalists = 1 billion
Chinese communist/athiests = 1 billion
other/impoverished starving uneducated = 1 billion
Fantasy Group = 4 billion = 66%
Communist/Athiest = 1 billion = 16%
Other/near dead irrelevant group = 1 billion = 16%
Those numbers do indicate we have a long way to go before we as a
planet have intellectually evolved out of medieval theology.
I did not realize Buddhism was so popular. Technically they fall into
the atheist group, though there are some theist among them.
Why do folks such as yourself have to assume that anyoine in the
Christian / thiest camp automatically denies evolution or the valid
aspects of darwin's 150 y.old opinions as a physical reality in the
world?
Evidently you have not been reading my posts. The premise of several
of them has been that there are reasonable xians who have accepted the
scientific evidence for events like heliotropism, a round earth, and
evolution of the species.
Noted again, no quote or reference ...... oh well.
Of course. Quoting myth is going to only take a person so far.
the quote i'm asking for is one related to darwin and science, btw.
You wanna have another go at a valid reason to accept a scientific
theory as being proven? ;-)
But again, I simply point out i am NOT talking about the last 150
years, but Darwin's OOS specifically ..... can anyone show me where
that long waffling saga meets the definition of sound science and that
it was based on solid evidence?
Pick: Fossil records, radiometric dating(including potassium/argon,
argon/argon, uranium series, and carbon-14 dating), DNA evidence,
zoological investigation. Quality of predictions based on evidence.
Why can;t you read and understand what I WROTE ?????
Darwin's OOS specifically <<<<<<<<<<<<
Did Darwin use "carbon dating" ?? NO
<shaking head>
Darwin did not need to use carbon dating. He only needed to make
assertions based on observations. Time tested his theories. Just
because what he observed was contrary to church doctrine did not make
him an atheist. Do you believe the earth is flat? Do you believe in
geocentrism? Does that make you an atheis? It contradicts biblical
cosmology.
It's a simple question, really. Nothing to do with 2006, or standing
the test of time. Is it a valid example of sound science?
Yes.
Hello ..... wake up ............ Darwin did not use DNA evidence to
make his case..... ;-))
Again observable are at work here. Darwin did the best science he
could with the tools of the period.
I don't think it is. Newton and Eienstien and Marconi are examples of
sound science imho. Idea, hypothesis, observation, experiment/math,
analysis of result., postulate theory, publish WITH supporting
documentation of evidence/facts. That's a sound theory.
Many zoologists, geneticists, engineers, and so on have published
evidence that has been repeatable and verifiable in the last 150 years.
Perhaps it would do you good to put down the 19th century documents and
pick up something more recent.
WHY?
When the question *I* am asking is can anyone show me where Darwin
actually follows sound science and presents valid evidence for HIS
theory?
Some of his HIS "guesses" may have been right after others found the
evidence, but was his documentation of his theory really **valid
science** and follow scientific principles and MO's?????
THAT is my question, if you don;t like the question tough, but that is
my question never the less.
The answer by all the other posters here have been Darwin's historical
accomplishments spurred terrific science. Science begins with
assertions. He make excellent assertions.
Einstein made assertions. If he or Darwin were easily disproved their
names would not have survived except as historical footnotes.
Fortunately for these two thinkers they made excellent assertions that
have been supported by subsequent evidence.
That is science.
Darwin was mmmmmm, other peoples ideas, observations, giant leap
theory, write a book longer than Gone with the Wind with no supporting
documentation. .................... that's science?????
Again, Darwin like Freud and Rutherford posited many theories in the
19th century. Notice that many of their theories did not survive
skeptical inquiry. However, many have. Natural selection is one of
them. Hell, you can observe it your self with a jar full of fruit
flies.
YES ... that's my point. "natural selection" is NOT much of THEORY is it?
Get married, have children ..... ***** the children loook like the
parents ... NOT much of a theory is it?
The species is not immutable ............... WOW like how obvious is
that in the first place?
It is only obvious now after 150 years of science. Just like it is
obvious now that the earth is not at the center of the universe.
I find that conclusion more than odd. But whatever. <smile
What is odd, is how you can cling to medieval myths in the light of
evidence. The earth is round, it rotates around the sun, and life
evolves.
Though your own mindset suggests that not all life evolves at the same rate.
STRAW MAN ..... get over yourself, and read what I am saying and not
what you IMAGINE I am saying.
You may benefit from reading a book on rhetoric. On the other hand,
you may better off with tapes on the subject -
http://www.teach12.com/ttc/assets/coursedescriptions/4294.asp?id=4294&d=Argumentation%3A+The+Study+of+Effective+Reasoning%2C+2nd+Edition&pc=Philosophy%20and%20Intellectual%20History
--
~Stu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
17 Apr 2006 02:12:11 AM |
|
|
You may benefit from reading a book on rhetoric. On the other hand, you
may better off with tapes on the subject -
I find it odd that you'd only mention this info to myself, whilst ignoring
the most inane level of rhetoric from the athiest brigade over the last
several weeks. Though, I am not surprised.
Thanks awefully for the wisdom of your insights. For someone apparantly
worthy of awards in the arts area, I find it even more odd the level of
observation and insight your unable to gain from my little notations to
individuals about specific issues. Of course, that must be "my" rhetoric
that is the problem here. Couldn;t possibly be anythig else surely. LOL
c'est la vie.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lizz Holmans" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
17 Apr 2006 11:37:13 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 12:47:27 +1000, "Sean"
<santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes Stu. Sure.
Christians = 1 billion
Muslims = 1 billion
Buddhists = 1 billion
other theists/supernaturalists = 1 billion
Chinese communist/athiests = 1 billion
other/impoverished starving uneducated = 1 billion
Fantasy Group = 4 billion = 66%
Communist/Athiest = 1 billion = 16%
Other/near dead irrelevant group = 1 billion = 16%
Why do folks such as yourself have to assume that anyoine in the Christian /
thiest camp automatically denies evolution or the valid aspects of darwin's
150 y.old opinions as a physical reality in the world?
Beats the hell out of me. Almost all Christians I know accept
evolution as a fact.
Lizz 'including me' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
14 Apr 2006 05:02:10 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 19:37:14 +1000, "Sean"
<santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-C709C1.22544413042006@news.giganews.com...
In article <1144950756.050852.257850@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
Research Journal (v29, #2)
Hardly a reliable source.
on how Darwin's atheism/materialism
influenced his writing more than actual science did.
Nonsense. Read his works as I have. They contain sound science based on
valid evidence.
Um, can you quote just one thing from his "theory" Origin of Species that is
sound science & based on valid evidence, and that isn't a simple opinion
based on his general ideas and personal anecdotal observations?
if so please quote and reference here >>
Yes:
From the Introduction to "Origin of the Species"
"In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a
naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on
their embryological relations, their geographical distribution,
geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the
conclusion that species had not been independently created, but had
descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a
conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it
could be shown how the innumerable species, inhabiting this world have
been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and
coadaptation which justly excites our admiration."
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/otoos610.txt
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
14 Apr 2006 06:41:13 AM |
|
|
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:d2su321g70p38dl5ri5s24f8knb66f8auh@4ax.com...
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 19:37:14 +1000, "Sean"
<santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-C709C1.22544413042006@news.giganews.com...
In article <1144950756.050852.257850@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
Research Journal (v29, #2)
Hardly a reliable source.
on how Darwin's atheism/materialism
influenced his writing more than actual science did.
Nonsense. Read his works as I have. They contain sound science based on
valid evidence.
Um, can you quote just one thing from his "theory" Origin of Species that
is
sound science & based on valid evidence, and that isn't a simple opinion
based on his general ideas and personal anecdotal observations?
if so please quote and reference here >>
Yes:
From the Introduction to "Origin of the Species"
"In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a
naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on
their embryological relations, their geographical distribution,
geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the
conclusion that species had not been independently created, but had
descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a
conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it
could be shown how the innumerable species, inhabiting this world have
been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and
coadaptation which justly excites our admiration."
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/otoos610.txt
thx, and the satisfactory evidence for this found within origin of species
would be??
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
15 Apr 2006 07:42:29 AM |
|
|
"Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fdSdnTA_PdzHF6LZRVn-jg@inspired.net.au...
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:d2su321g70p38dl5ri5s24f8knb66f8auh@4ax.com...
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 19:37:14 +1000, "Sean"
<santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-C709C1.22544413042006@news.giganews.com...
In article <1144950756.050852.257850@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
Research Journal (v29, #2)
Hardly a reliable source.
on how Darwin's atheism/materialism
influenced his writing more than actual science did.
Nonsense. Read his works as I have. They contain sound science based on
valid evidence.
Um, can you quote just one thing from his "theory" Origin of Species that
is
sound science & based on valid evidence, and that isn't a simple opinion
based on his general ideas and personal anecdotal observations?
if so please quote and reference here >>
Yes:
From the Introduction to "Origin of the Species"
"In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a
naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on
their embryological relations, their geographical distribution,
geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the
conclusion that species had not been independently created, but had
descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a
conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it
could be shown how the innumerable species, inhabiting this world have
been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and
coadaptation which justly excites our admiration."
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/otoos610.txt
thx, and the satisfactory evidence for this found within origin of species
would be??
Darwin tells ya where to look ya big silly.
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
14 Apr 2006 08:17:09 AM |
|
|
Sean wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-C709C1.22544413042006@news.giganews.com...
In article <1144950756.050852.257850@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
Research Journal (v29, #2)
Hardly a reliable source.
on how Darwin's atheism/materialism
influenced his writing more than actual science did.
Nonsense. Read his works as I have. They contain sound science based on
valid evidence.
Um, can you quote just one thing from his "theory" Origin of Species that is
sound science & based on valid evidence, and that isn't a simple opinion
based on his general ideas and personal anecdotal observations?
if so please quote and reference here >>
"If several varieties of the cabbage, radish, onion, and of some other
plants, be allowed to seed near each other, a large majority, as I have
found, of the seedlings thus raised will turn out mongrels: for
instance, I raised 233 seedling cabbages from some plants of different
varieties growing near each other, and of these only 78 were true to
their kind, and some even of these were not perfectly true. Yet the
pistil of each cabbage-flower is surrounded not only by its own six
stamens, but by those of the many other flowers on the same plant. How,
then, comes it that such a vast number of the seedlings are mongrelised?
I suspect that it must arise from the pollen of a distinct variety
having a prepotent effect over a flower's own pollen; and that this is
part of the general law of good being derived from the intercrossing of
distinct individuals of the same species. When distinct species are
crossed the case is directly the reverse, for a plant's own pollen is
always prepotent over foreign pollen; but to this subject we shall
return in a future chapter."
From Chapter 4 OOS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
14 Apr 2006 08:42:23 AM |
|
|
"Elmer" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:phN%f.7043$tT.1683@news01.roc.ny...
Sean wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-C709C1.22544413042006@news.giganews.com...
In article <1144950756.050852.257850@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1613801/posts
Darwin Was Not Influenced by Science
http://www.equip.org/journal/index.asp
Posted on 04/12/2006 9:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
There's an interesting article in the current issue of the Christian
Research Journal (v29, #2)
Hardly a reliable source.
on how Darwin's atheism/materialism
influenced his writing more than actual science did.
Nonsense. Read his works as I have. They contain sound science based on
valid evidence.
Um, can you quote just one thing from his "theory" Origin of Species that
is sound science & based on valid evidence, and that isn't a simple
opinion based on his general ideas and personal anecdotal observations?
if so please quote and reference here >>
"If several varieties of the cabbage, radish, onion, and of some other
plants, be allowed to seed near each other, a large majority, as I have
found, of the seedlings thus raised will turn out mongrels: for instance,
I raised 233 seedling cabbages from some plants of different varieties
growing near each other, and of these only 78 were true to their kind, and
some even of these were not perfectly true. Yet the pistil of each
cabbage-flower is surrounded not only by its own six stamens, but by those
of the many other flowers on the same plant. How, then, comes it that such
a vast number of the seedlings are mongrelised? I suspect that it must
arise from the pollen of a distinct variety having a prepotent effect over
a flower's own pollen; and that this is part of the general law of good
being derived from the intercrossing of distinct individuals of the same
species. When distinct species are crossed the case is directly the
reverse, for a plant's own pollen is always prepotent over foreign pollen;
but to this subject we shall return in a future chapter."
From Chapter 4 OOS
Good example.
Is "I suspect" an accepted scientific method?
Was the cabbage expereint repeated? What relevance is that to iguanas in the
south atlantic?
Are you really really sure that OOS is/was sound science and based on valid
evidence?
I recall Darwin specifically saying that any relayed "evidince" had been
specifially excluded from his "abstract" work called OOS.
I also recall that Darwin did not ever once in OOS clearly articulate any
postuates or say "My scienbtific theory is 1, 2, 3, and 4. and here are the
appendix with supporting evidence for same" .... so whether or not his
"abstract" opinion was a good guess or not after the fact, I still fail to
see how OOS can be put up as a poster child of an example of sound science
and valid repeatable evidence or experiements that prove the postualtes.
But hey, who am I to argue with the rest of the world? ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Franck" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
14 Apr 2006 06:21:18 PM |
|
|
"Sean" wrote
Is "I suspect" an accepted scientific method?
Certainly. Any theory must conclude more than can be definitively
proven, or it doesn't add anything.
Are you really really sure that OOS is/was sound science and based on
valid evidence?
It's the only rational conclusion from the evidence. All else involves
magical thinking.
I also recall that Darwin did not ever once in OOS clearly articulate any
postuates or say "My scienbtific theory is 1, 2, 3, and 4. and here are
the appendix with supporting evidence for same" .... so whether or not his
"abstract" opinion was a good guess or not after the fact, I still fail to
see how OOS can be put up as a poster child of an example of sound science
and valid repeatable evidence or experiements that prove the postualtes.
It was postulated before even the basic principles of heredity had
been worked out. It presupposed the modern science of genetics.
What you must realize is biology is not like physics or math. You
form broad generalizations based on what is available. Medical
researchers aren't sure why half the drugs we take actually work.
--
Craig Franck
craig.franck@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
14 Apr 2006 11:27:47 PM |
|
|
"Craig Franck" <craig.franck@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:O7W%f.20$_w6.12@trndny09...
"Sean" wrote
Is "I suspect" an accepted scientific method?
Certainly. Any theory must conclude more than can be definitively
proven, or it doesn't add anything.
Are you really really sure that OOS is/was sound science and based on
valid evidence?
It's the only rational conclusion from the evidence. All else involves
magical thinking.
Then I would suggest that Darwin was infused with magical thinking ......
Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view
that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords
better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator,
that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of
the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining
the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special
creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long
before the first bed of the Cambrian system was deposited, they seem to me
to become ennobled. Judging from the past, we may safely infer that not one
living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity.
And of the species now living very few will transmit progeny of any kind to
a far distant futurity; for the manner in which all organic beings are
grouped, shows that the greater number of species in each genus, and all the
species in many genera, have left no descendants, but have become utterly
extinct. We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretell
that it will be the common and widely-spread species, belonging to the
larger and dominant groups within each class, which will ultimately prevail
and procreate new and dominant species. As all the living forms of life are
the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Cambrian epoch,
we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never
once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence
we may look with some confidence to secure future of great length. And as
natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all
corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.
http://www.zoo.uib.no/classics/darwin/origin.chap15.html
How coulod it be said that "natural selection" works solely by and for the
good of each being, whne there is a litany of examples where such "good" has
led to the extinction of species?
I'd suhggest this is just one example of magical thinking ...... the other
is that the progress is towards perfection as opposed to entrophy and a
degeneration of the variation of life to the mundane.
How could evolution support the idea of perfection in the likes of Stalian
and Hitler and POl Pot, and the many many "individuals" who acted out the
policies of these people?
How can evolution support the idea of perfection when children around Kiev
are born with deformaties because men are stupid.
How can evolution point to perfection when slavery is a major foundation for
America's economic and social and political wealth today?
I also recall that Darwin did not ever once in OOS clearly articulate any
postuates or say "My scienbtific theory is 1, 2, 3, and 4. and here are
the appendix with supporting evidence for same" .... so whether or not
his "abstract" opinion was a good guess or not after the fact, I still
fail to see how OOS can be put up as a poster child of an example of
sound science and valid repeatable evidence or experiements that prove
the postualtes.
It was postulated before even the basic principles of heredity had
been worked out. It presupposed the modern science of genetics.
BIG DEAL ....hereidity is obvious ...... there is no basis in fact that
natural selection has anything to do with anything, only that when two of a
species get together thier progeny will have particualr traits some similar
to their parents and some not.
Where is the EVIDENCE that a thing called "natural selection" has anything
to do with genetics?
If so why is there so much ongoing genetic malfunctions going on, or is this
natures way of eliminatiing particular types of humanity ..... if so, and if
this has been scientifically PROVEN as being the way of "natural selection"
then how come people are bothered to do any science to overcime such
defromties and weaknesses to illnesses .... how about just let people die.
For that is the ONLY logical outcome of believing in the "theory" of
evolution and natural selection. ONLY the fittest will survive, therefore
all weaker versions of a species are DOOMED .... then let them die is the
only sane logical step for a scientist who believes in darwin's theories.
Let nature decide, 100%
But we don;t do we?
Everyday repeatable human actions DEFIES any REAL belief in Darwinism, and
the supremeacy of natural selection.
What you must realize is biology is not like physics or math. You
form broad generalizations based on what is available. Medical
researchers aren't sure why half the drugs we take actually work.
--
Craig Franck
craig.franck@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Franck" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Was Influenced By Atheism, Not By Science |
15 Apr 2006 06:10:57 PM |
|
|
"Sean" wrote
"Craig Franck" wrote
"Sean" wrote
Are you really really sure that OOS is/was sound science and based on
valid evidence?
It's the only rational conclusion from the evidence. All else involves
magical thinking.
Then I would suggest that Darwin was infused with magical thinking ......
I don't doubt he was. Darwin was a transitional figure; he only had one
foot in the door, so to speak. (Newton was even more of a magical
thinker.)
One question is whether the driving feature of biodiversity is going to be
full-blown hocus pocus or natural process. Another is whether the
biosphere needed to be set in motion by a supernatural process. It was
common in Darwin's day to believe in naturalism WRT the first question,
and supernaturalism WRT the second.
How coulod it be said that "natural selection" works solely by and for the
good of each being, whne there is a litany of examples where such "good"
has led to the extinction of species?
I'd suhggest this is just one example of magica | | | | | | | |
