Evidence for God from Science

tj rich wrote:I'm not defending Darwin or Darwinism, I'm suggesting that people and their ideas should be taken in a historical context. Darwin's personality has no bearing on the validity of his theory.

Tj, again, please re-read what Darwin is saying about where his theory is going..

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world."

It's a survival of the fittest theory.. If you are strong you will survive.. There is NO equality... There is NO spirituality... There are No souls.. There is NO love.. Only chemical reactions in your brain... And when that goes, you have nothing because that is the place where it ever existed..

All there is are more genetically evolved people on the planet.. One race is more evolved than the other... Robots... Mechanisms.. That is all you get... The spiritual world means absolutely nothing... And you would sacrifice your life for this silliness?? A theory that doesn't respect you or others and refers to you simply as a number? At least say you are a buddist or something with a spiritual connection..

I'm not a theologian and I referred you to the web page to show how the bible has been used to endorse slavery, I'm happy that you are able to claim it doesn't but people did in the past.

Of course people used the Bible to endorse slavery... You don't think I see that? People use the Bible for other racist things too... But you can't fault the Bible on it... People have simply taken things out of context to support their warped views.. You CANNOT equate this stupidness to God and the Bible... It is in total contrast to God's nature.. I would love to debate anyone on this topic...

The bible hasn't changed but we have. Modern evoloutionary theory has moved on from Darwin and we can now see his mistakes but to lambast him as a racist in a time of mass slavery in America seems pointless. We know he was wrong because science has proved him wrong. You're right on one point though - some of us really don't learn anything from history.

I did not lambast him directly as a racist, (although I may have alluded to it)... That is why I posed the question "Darwin a racist?" Everyone has some type of racism is their life.. Everyone, (including me).. I simply believe his theory of evolution alone promotes racism on some level.. Not directly the person believing it..

My point is that God sees everyone the same.. Evolution can't..

Firstly, nice to see the old Gman back- intelligent, articulate and most of all reasonable. I hope you know I mean that. My point was that showing Darwin's racism doesn't have any bearing on his theory and as evoloutionary theory has moved on, it just isn't relevant. I completely accept that the present theory of evoloution, if taken to it's logical conclusion, paints a cold and hopeless picture. That's science. You have to call it as you see it and as the weight of evidence supports this theory that is what scientists must tell you they believe is the truth.
BUT We learn from history(hopefully) that mainstream scientific thought can be overturned in an instant and if/when evoloution is overturned it will be by science.
Even if evoloution could be proved beyond any doubt(it can't be, that's not how science works), so what? 300yrs ago the catholic church said the heliocentric solar system was heretical, it went against scripture and must be wrong. Now almost all of us accept this model yet religion and faith didn't disappear.
The nature of scientific method means it must be given room to make mistakes and knee jerk reactions like ID just don't help. Unless we forsake technology,we need science but equally we need religion or we could forsake our humanity. I'd better stop as I'm starting to preach and this is only my opinion. Merry Christmas everyone!

There were two main justifications for 'Christian slavery':

- A black skin was the result of Noah's curse on Cham. (No matter that Cham's son Canaan was cursed, and that the Bible doesn't talk about a black skin as the result.)
- (the most insidious one) Blacks have no souls. (And if you think that is ridiculous, look at the webpages of abortionists, who have come up with a modernized version...)

tj rich wrote:Firstly, nice to see the old Gman back- intelligent, articulate and most of all reasonable. I hope you know I mean that. My point was that showing Darwin's racism doesn't have any bearing on his theory and as evoloutionary theory has moved on, it just isn't relevant.

Thanks... Tj, I don't know where Darwin got his views on the races.. Again my point is that God sees everyone as equals and spiritual beings.. Evolution can't..

tj rich wrote:I completely accept that the present theory of evoloution, if taken to it's logical conclusion, paints a cold and hopeless picture.

Yes, the 'theory" of evolution paints a cold helpless world.. And when someone dies, that light of life will will be blown out like a match never to return again.. So what purpose is there to life? To just have my fun then die?

tj rich wrote:That's science. You have to call it as you see it and as the weight of evidence supports this theory that is what scientists must tell you they believe is the truth.

No, that is the evolutional "theory" of science... To this very day it has NEVER been proven to be completely factual (as to origins)... In other words, people would rather throw a relationship with God away on a hunch... A God that only wants the best for you.. I don't see the reason why someone would do this... I just don't...

tj rich wrote:BUT We learn from history(hopefully) that mainstream scientific thought can be overturned in an instant and if/when evoloution is overturned it will be by science.

Maybe in the future... I don't know how this would happen though in the scientific community though.. Currently the separation between church and state here in the U.S. has not allowed any other views.. The intelligent design argument that is..

tj rich wrote:Even if evoloution could be proved beyond any doubt(it can't be, that's not how science works), so what? 300yrs ago the catholic church said the heliocentric solar system was heretical, it went against scripture and must be wrong. Now almost all of us accept this model yet religion and faith didn't disappear.

I don't think the evolutionary theory nor the creationism theory will probably ever be "totally" proven unless we get some divine intervention..

Again, people used the Bible to prove that the world was once flat too.. But that doesn't prove that the Bible was wrong.. We just have people making their own claims from it. The Bible is more about theology not biology or any of the other sciences..

tj rich wrote:The nature of scientific method means it must be given room to make mistakes and knee jerk reactions like ID just don't help. Unless we forsake technology,we need science but equally we need religion or we could forsake our humanity. I'd better stop as I'm starting to preach and this is only my opinion. Merry Christmas everyone!

Ok, I would agree with you that both camps make mistakes.. And yes, I would also agree with you that we need both religion and science.. Also I'm not totally against the theory evolution.. Some of it is factual and it cannot be denied or argued.. It's only when you get into origins, that to me is where the problem lies.. Both are merely "theories" in that respect..

Have a Merry Christmas there too in Belfast..

Take care,

G -

Turgonian wrote:There were two main justifications for 'Christian slavery':

- A black skin was the result of Noah's curse on Cham. (No matter that Cham's son Canaan was cursed, and that the Bible doesn't talk about a black skin as the result.)
- (the most insidious one) Blacks have no souls. (And if you think that is ridiculous, look at the webpages of abortionists, who have come up with a modernized version...)

Cham? I thought it was Ham?

tj rich wrote:Firstly, nice to see the old Gman back- intelligent, articulate and most of all reasonable. I hope you know I mean that. My point was that showing Darwin's racism doesn't have any bearing on his theory and as evoloutionary theory has moved on, it just isn't relevant. I completely accept that the present theory of evoloution, if taken to it's logical conclusion, paints a cold and hopeless picture. That's science. You have to call it as you see it and as the weight of evidence supports this theory that is what scientists must tell you they believe is the truth.
BUT We learn from history(hopefully) that mainstream scientific thought can be overturned in an instant and if/when evoloution is overturned it will be by science.
Even if evoloution could be proved beyond any doubt(it can't be, that's not how science works), so what? 300yrs ago the catholic church said the heliocentric solar system was heretical, it went against scripture and must be wrong. Now almost all of us accept this model yet religion and faith didn't disappear.
The nature of scientific method means it must be given room to make mistakes and knee jerk reactions like ID just don't help. Unless we forsake technology,we need science but equally we need religion or we could forsake our humanity. I'd better stop as I'm starting to preach and this is only my opinion. Merry Christmas everyone!

Hmmm.

You appear to be confusing evolution as a methodology with darwinsim and neo-darwinism as an exclusively metaerialistic basis for knowlege which goes beyond science and enters the realm of metaphysics or philosophy.

I certainly agree that the example of Galileo and a heliocentric system demonstrates that religious people can and do make mistakes. Science is certainly representative of that as well. That's an inevitable human quality.

That doesn't stand in condemnation of Christianity as truth, however. Nuclear science is truth scienctifically as far as the ability to release or harness the power present within an atom. What man does with that knowledge determines whether it will be used in a nuclear reactor to produce power, or in a bomb to produce destruction.

Nuclear theory itself is amoral. It simply "is."

Pity many can see that in science but then refuse to see it in terms of religion or philosophy, making blanket assuptions instead.

Well, let's keep in mind this was the nineteenth century and he was a Victorian.
And he was brought up in a time that was racist and sexist. his folly does not disprove evolution.

LadyHel wrote:Well, let's keep in mind this was the nineteenth century and he was a Victorian.
And he was brought up in a time that was racist and sexist. his folly does not disprove evolution.

His folly has nothing to do whether evolution is true or not.. But you are right, he had his follies..

Keep in mind this is December 22, 2006...

As an insult, "neanderthal" can also refer to someone who acts in a primitive manner.

I just finished watching the Simpson's on t.v.. On the Simpson's, Homer's latin names'' is known as Homo Neanderthal'us thus making him a primitive person or subspecies..

FFC wrote:Cham? I thought it was Ham?

Sorry. 'Tis spelled Cham in Dutch.

Turgonian wrote:

FFC wrote:Cham? I thought it was Ham?

Sorry. 'Tis spelled Cham in Dutch.

Oh okay. I thought you were using another bible translation.

I'm a bit late with any reply, but I've been travelling in Thailand and Laos and internet access is way down on my priorities. A materialistic basis for knowledge excludes metaphysics by definition, sorry canuckster. Evoloution by natural selection is a theory and should be treated as such. Dawkins new book "the God delusion" is very popular out here amongst the backpackers and has stimulated some interesting debate. It offers nothing new but re-affirms his opinions in a (I thought) spiteful way. This should probably be a new topic but can anyone offer an alternative read. I've found myself playing devil's advocate a few times in the interests of fairness and I would like a book to redress the balance and give these new converts to atheism (no I don't consider it a religion but that's how it seems sometimes) another perspective.
Ps Gman "lambast" was the wrong word, but I couldn't resist it.!

FFC wrote:

Turgonian wrote:

FFC wrote:Cham? I thought it was Ham?

Sorry. 'Tis spelled Cham in Dutch.

Oh okay. I thought you were using another bible translation.

I was. The name came directly from the Statenvertaling.

I always thought Cham was a ham who had a son called Sam who lived in Japan...

Gman wrote:I always thought Cham was a ham who had a son called Sam who lived in Japan...

Be careful, Gman, or you will get Judah and Turgy started again .

Darwin learned taxidermy from John Edmonstone, a freed black slave who told him exciting tales of the South American rainforest. Later, in The Descent of Man, he used this experience as evidence that "Negroes and Europeans" were closely related despite superficial differences in appearance.

I think Darwin was a free thinker and not racist, compared with the typical views of his time.