• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Darwinism is a saner attitude...

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
You haven't cited anything at all that shows any gods being involved or even at all required.

Were gods or God involved in the creation of it all? That's opinion, and science will remain
silent about the Ultimate-Start-Of-It-All and the Reason-Why. But the fact that Genesis gets
a lot right suggests something afoot. Other "creation myths" don't come close.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
But the fact that Genesis gets
a lot right suggests something afoot.

Genesis doesn't get a lot right. You're just labelling all the bits that obviously don't fit as "theological talk" and then desperately trying to persuade people that the rest is compatible with science. It's a joke - Genesis 1 is just plain wrong.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
When Earth’s continents rose above its oceans | EarthSky.org
About three billion years ago the continents rose. They rose about 4km
from the ocean floor. That means the earth was oceanic for probably
over a billion years.

The closest we can come to an idea of the early earth is the cloud shrouded
moon Titan
Earth analog - Wikipedia

No, I am not "babbling"
You are getting too personal.
You don't know Genesis is a "myth" because neither of us were there. We can
however look at the facts and tease out what Genesis is saying.

Of course you were babbling. And you forgot about a huge part of your post that I objected to:

"So, dark, wet and sterile." <bolding mine>

Also those articles appear to be making the error of assuming that there was as much water as there is today When the Earth first formed water would have been initially in the rocks that made up the Earth and that would have been released through volcanism. Even though continental crust took several hundreds of millions of years to form that does not mean that all land was below the sea. Higher areas with "oceanic crust" would still be dry land. The Earth has almost certainly never been "dark and wet". Genesis is wrong no matter how hard you bang away at that square peg.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Of course you were babbling. And you forgot about a huge part of your post that I objected to:

"So, dark, wet and sterile." <bolding mine>

Also those articles appear to be making the error of assuming that there was as much water as there is today When the Earth first formed water would have been initially in the rocks that made up the Earth and that would have been released through volcanism. Even though continental crust took several hundreds of millions of years to form that does not mean that all land was below the sea. Higher areas with "oceanic crust" would still be dry land. The Earth has almost certainly never been "dark and wet". Genesis is wrong no matter how hard you bang away at that square peg.

We simply don't know. I suspect there probably were exposed outcrops, or even ice.
Science teaches you nothing is simple. But generally, the great land masses didn't
exist.
Was it dark? Genesis says it was. Titan is considered an "earth analogue" and it's
shrouded in clouds, like Venus. Its possible that most early earth-like planets began
in a cloud phase - some stay in it, ie Venus.

So yeah, science and bible say the early earth was sterile (sorry, prebiotic) dark
and very very wet. Maybe even cold.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Genesis doesn't get a lot right. You're just labelling all the bits that obviously don't fit as "theological talk" and then desperately trying to persuade people that the rest is compatible with science. It's a joke - Genesis 1 is just plain wrong.

Specifics, please. I give them, why can't you?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Were gods or God involved in the creation of it all? That's opinion

Then what are you doing arguing it as if you think they are facts?

[utoe]
, and science will remain silent about the Ultimate-Start-Of-It-All[/quote]

No, science is very much addressing "start of it all" in fields like physics, cosmology, etc.

and the Reason-Why

First try to establish that that is even a sensible question to begin with.
Asking about "the reason why" before even establishing that there is a reason to ask about, is jumping the gun.


But the fact that Genesis gets a lot right suggests something afoot.

By "fact", you mean your effort in doing your very best to retroactively force fit scientific findings into a bronze age text, while ignoring all the stuff that doesn't fit and while pretending that the things it gets wrong "aren't really meant like that"?

The only thing this suggests, is your psychological defense mechanism to defend your faith-based beliefs as well as your obvious confirmation bias.

Other "creation myths" don't come close.

Other creation myths can be read in the exact same way as you do with yours. Semantic games, denial and confirmation bias applies just the same.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Btw... in Italy we are taught Evolution as a religion since the 4th grade or earlier....
As these drawings in this school notebook can attest

img_3396.jpg
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
...than Creationism.
Not only Darwinism answers many of our questions rationally but makes us closer to nature, because we do understand what we were (animals) and that we need to better ourselves. To evolve.

Creationism is dangerous because it says we don't need improvement.

Christian creationism says we MUST improve to evolve to become new creatures . . . or perish.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Darwin was a European Christian from a top colonial power.
Of course he was racist. Almost all of them were.
Tom


Darwin was "christian" in a torn sense

His mother was more traditionally a Christian Ironically, Darwin's only degree was in Bible.
His father's side another story not known well by evolutionists. His grandfather Erasmus was more of an occult evolutionist who already believed a the of evolution with 'everything from sea shells ' as his motto.

Darwin was torn between those two worlds.

Yes, England had a racial bend and even a nobel man was to be raise in the jungle by animals like Tarzan or Mogli they would end up on top
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
What is darwinsim?
It's a term that scientifically illiterate Christians use. They often prefer to believe that everybody has as much Faith in humans as they do. So they refer to biology as Darwinism, as though it's a Faith based belief system dependent on the revelation of the prophet Charles Darwin.

Kinda stupid, but there you have it.
Tom
 

gnostic

The Lost One
...than Creationism.
Not only Darwinism answers many of our questions rationally but makes us closer to nature, because we do understand what we were (animals) and that we need to better ourselves. To evolve.

Creationism is dangerous because it says we don't need improvement.
Evolution, especially that of humans (both past and present species) occurred thousands of generations, to notice anatomical and physiological changes, and these changes affect populations, not individuals.

So one person decided to go on a diet and lose some weights, it won’t affect the whole population.

And it all have to with genes, DNA & RNA that can be passed on to further generations, hence hereditary traits. The ways we live our lives, culturally and politically have no affect on genes and DNA; it is all biology.

What Evolution does do, is provide understanding of biological past and the biodiversity of life.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
It's a term that scientifically illiterate Christians use. They often prefer to believe that everybody has as much Faith in humans as they do. So they refer to biology as Darwinism, as though it's a Faith based belief system dependent on the revelation of the prophet Charles Darwin.

Kinda stupid, but there you have it.
Tom
Silly indeed.

Darwin himself, never the term used Darwinism.

So if we “believe” in electricity, then should we be called electricitists, voltists, ampists or ohmists? Or how about electromagnetists or fieldians?

If we accept gravity, then should we be called gravitists or gravitians?

Why don’t creationists used these?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Btw... in Italy we are taught Evolution as a religion since the 4th grade or earlier....
As these drawings in this school notebook can attest

View attachment 31857

So when you learn about calculus or gravity, do you call it "a religion" as well?

What exactly is it about this drawing that makes you think that it "attests to the idea that it is thought like a religion"?



btw: from what kind of school is that? it seems kind of strange to me to teach biology like that... looks more like a drawing class then anything else. It's also kind of wrong... evolution is not a ladder. And if you wish to still represent it as such, then homo neanderthalis is not a step "lower" then homo sapiens. Neanderthalis is not an ancestor of sapiens. More like a cousin, if anything.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Darwin was "christian" in a torn sense

His mother was more traditionally a Christian Ironically, Darwin's only degree was in Bible.
His father's side another story not known well by evolutionists. His grandfather Erasmus was more of an occult evolutionist who already believed a the of evolution with 'everything from sea shells ' as his motto.

Darwin was torn between those two worlds.

Yes, England had a racial bend and even a nobel man was to be raise in the jungle by animals like Tarzan or Mogli they would end up on top


Whatever may be the case, none of it matters in context of his scientific works.
If one is going to claim that it does matter, then all one is doing is engaging in an ad hominem argument.


The theory of evolution, like all theories, falls and stands on its own merrits - no matter who came up with it.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
What is darwinsim?

Creationists like to use it as some kind of insult for some reason.

In reality, it's just a term that refers to development through "darwinian" means.
"Darwinian" being: through reproduction with modifcation followed by some selection process regulated by certain parameters called selection pressures.

For example, in software we can create opimization modules or search heuristics through "genetic algoritms", which are processes inspired by how biological evolution works. You could refer to such as calling them "darwinian processes" or "darwinian optimization".

Just like you can speak about "newtonian physics".

In context of scientific jargon, nobody really uses them except as a qualifier at times. In the case of physics, for example, to distinguish the context from what Einstein for example contributed.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
So when you learn about calculus or gravity, do you call it "a religion" as well?

What exactly is it about this drawing that makes you think that it "attests to the idea that it is thought like a religion"?



btw: from what kind of school is that? it seems kind of strange to me to teach biology like that... looks more like a drawing class then anything else. It's also kind of wrong... evolution is not a ladder. And if you wish to still represent it as such, then homo neanderthalis is not a step "lower" then homo sapiens. Neanderthalis is not an ancestor of sapiens. More like a cousin, if anything.
4th grade....
 
Top