Did Darwin Kill God?

[bizzbo]

how about, faith that if you are caring and virtuous, that you will be rewarded

evil or what

What religion is that? Just being caring and virtuous isn't enough for any religion I know of. You'll still be burning away for eternity in hell fire,

In any case, I am taking faith in it's entirety, with it's logical outcomes etc... not a cherry picked, false (if we want to be technical), segment. I'd also say that if religious people are only nice to others because its one of god's commandments, I think the atheist, who is nice to others, should be at the head of any queue outside heaven. There's nothing noble about being nice just because a dictator tells you to.

Argh!, I fear I am getting caught up in a load of irrelevant crap....

NOTHING THAT HAS BEEN SAID IN THIS THREAD, PLEA'S OF HOW A RELIGION CAN HAVE NICE PARTS ETC, MAKES RELIGION/GOD TRUE!

I want to be able to sit here and tell you that I have had a long weekend with an oiled up, leather-clad, Keira Knightley and Natalie Portman, but, unfortunately, just wanting it to have happened does not mean that it did :(

When the religious folk have some evidence to back up their claims give us a shout, and then we can discuss whether God is a tyrant or lovable bearded bloke.... but until then, I think I'll try and find out where my Goddesses, Keira and Nat, live.

slow down, your argument was that any 'faith' that was not backed up by evidence could be considered malignent.

 

[bizzbo]

I can dissect your argument by pointing out that there are always 'anomalies'. Not ONE without 'mutation'?? Not even one with genes strong enough to document a link? In other words a 'throwback'??

Hard to believe...

coupla things

1. the development of a trait is only ever likely to happen where a sudden shift in enviromental conditions leads to massive pressure applied to the survival and reproductive rates, or, where a genetic stock/population, becomes isolated from external genetic influence, and is more likely to adapt to local conditions.

2. in either case, it requires countless generations.

3. if there were retrograde mutations, they typically would be ill adapted to the current enviroment, far less likely to pass on their genetics over the generations in the numbers required for that trait to take hold. thus, if individuals possesing a retrograde trait lived alongside the current population, they would always be astronomically outnumbered, and would likely die younger. on that basis, is it really suprising that they are hardly ever seen in the fossil record.

 

[johnny crossan]

Elanjo Wrote
Yawn... you again? no quotes this time? shame.

The faith/virus analogy is a decent one. A kid who is brought up to believe that a religion is real, that hell is real (and that if you dont believe you will go to hell forever - hell is a very real, and frightening, thing to children) etc etc can find it incredibly hard to overcome. If they don't manage they will likely spread it onto their own children. It also tends to infect your ability to rationalise and, in doing so, interact with the actual world around you. You aren't really living in the real world, you're in a sort of delusional daze.

But if you don't like the analogy, so what? How about you get into the ring proper, and get your hands dirty, instead of taking little semantic potshots?


Such taunts from a man so non-delusional he chooses his most hated players as his Blue Moon identity. (That dirty enough for you?)

Joking apart, I really don't know where to start with you Readers Digest scientists.
At the risk of oversimplification - there is no God versus Science contest. It is all a colossal category mistake. Figurative language is just one way we communicate with each other, whether developing scientific models or speaking of our understanding of God.

I'm just wasting my time aren't I.......

 

[Bigga]

I can dissect your argument by pointing out that there are always 'anomalies'. Not ONE without 'mutation'?? Not even one with genes strong enough to document a link? In other words a 'throwback'??

Hard to believe...

coupla things

1. the development of a trait is only ever likely to happen where a sudden shift in enviromental conditions leads to massive pressure applied to the survival and reproductive rates, or, where a genetic stock/population, becomes isolated from external genetic influence, and is more likely to adapt to local conditions.

2. in either case, it requires countless generations.

3. if there were retrograde mutations, they typically would be ill adapted to the current enviroment, far less likely to pass on their genetics over the generations in the numbers required for that trait to take hold. thus, if individuals possesing a retrograde trait lived alongside the current population, they would always be astronomically outnumbered, and would likely die younger. on that basis, is it really suprising that they are hardly ever seen in the fossil record.

And we can attribute these conditions to the Apes that suddenly developed differently than their counterparts(but not all Apes, of course, cos that would be madness wouldn't it...?)?

See, I'm trying work out whether it was one Ape that suddenly changed, mated with another producing a mixed result, then having lots more that mated with each other and so on and so on til we get to Mankind OR whether, like the flu, there was a sudden group of 'affected' Apes that got together and mated.

I suppose if things started out with one Ape and that Ape mated with a normal Ape, the chances are the borne Ape would go on to mate with yet another 'normal' Ape thus reducing the genes of the first 'affected' Ape, wouldn't it??

I dunno, I'm tired and can't be arsed, when I have work to do, so... On that note...

 

[ElanJo]

Elanjo Wrote
Yawn... you again? no quotes this time? shame.

The faith/virus analogy is a decent one. A kid who is brought up to believe that a religion is real, that hell is real (and that if you dont believe you will go to hell forever - hell is a very real, and frightening, thing to children) etc etc can find it incredibly hard to overcome. If they don't manage they will likely spread it onto their own children. It also tends to infect your ability to rationalise and, in doing so, interact with the actual world around you. You aren't really living in the real world, you're in a sort of delusional daze.

But if you don't like the analogy, so what? How about you get into the ring proper, and get your hands dirty, instead of taking little semantic potshots?


Such taunts from a man so non-delusional he chooses his most hated players as his Blue Moon identity. (That dirty enough for you?)

Joking apart, I really don't know where to start with you Readers Digest scientists.
At the risk of oversimplification - there is no God versus Science contest. It is all a colossal category mistake. Figurative language is just one way we communicate with each other, whether developing scientific models or speaking of our understanding of God.

I'm just wasting my time aren't I.......

If there were no numerous alleged "sons of God" "prophets" "popes" and "scripture" etc etc and instead there was this general belief that the universe was set in motion/created by a god/supernatural being of some kind, then , yes, you would be right. It would be a mistake to fret about science vs god (as much - it wouldn't help the study of the origins of the universe I bet).
However, this is not the case. We have religious people basing their lives on scripture, word's of popes, vicars and all their interpretations of scripture. Whether you want to admit it or not, science has had to fight religion for the right to investigate the world and teach others their findings. You can only blame people so far, eventually it comes down to the very nature of religious faith and the word in scripture. This is what makes so many people, who are completely ignorant of whatever area of reality they put down to their specific god, believe , with all their being, that they are right. Even if it they aren't part of an idiotic ID group infiltrating school boards, and instead are quietly religious..... in a democratic system of governance (mob rule), they can still push us back by voting using their scripture-based moral code.

Until religion backs off from attacking science, and evolution in particular, you can expect people like me to continue defending, and counter attacking if need be.

This thread would have been better as "Did Darwin kill a belief (in a god)?" . The answer would simply be a resounding "no".

PS. I dont hate Elano, or Jo. It's funny, I got accused of blind admiration of Elano only a week or 2 ago.
If I had joined the forum after Rob signed, I would have claimed the name "RoblanJo"...

 

[ElanJo]

I can dissect your argument by pointing out that there are always 'anomalies'. Not ONE without 'mutation'?? Not even one with genes strong enough to document a link? In other words a 'throwback'??

Hard to believe...

coupla things

1. the development of a trait is only ever likely to happen where a sudden shift in enviromental conditions leads to massive pressure applied to the survival and reproductive rates, or, where a genetic stock/population, becomes isolated from external genetic influence, and is more likely to adapt to local conditions.

2. in either case, it requires countless generations.

3. if there were retrograde mutations, they typically would be ill adapted to the current enviroment, far less likely to pass on their genetics over the generations in the numbers required for that trait to take hold. thus, if individuals possesing a retrograde trait lived alongside the current population, they would always be astronomically outnumbered, and would likely die younger. on that basis, is it really suprising that they are hardly ever seen in the fossil record.

And we can attribute these conditions to the Apes that suddenly developed differently than their counterparts(but not all Apes, of course, cos that would be madness wouldn't it...?)?

See, I'm trying work out whether it was one Ape that suddenly changed, mated with another producing a mixed result, then having lots more that mated with each other and so on and so on til we get to Mankind OR whether, like the flu, there was a sudden group of 'affected' Apes that got together and mated.

I suppose if things started out with one Ape and that Ape mated with a normal Ape, the chances are the borne Ape would go on to mate with yet another 'normal' Ape thus reducing the genes of the first 'affected' Ape, wouldn't it??

I dunno, I'm tired and can't be arsed, when I have work to do, so... On that note...

Africa used to be complete jungle. Environmental conditions changed that and savanna's grew. The mutations that allowed apes to walk upright gradually became more prevalent because of this. Jungles still exist in Africa, thus why apes are still about - but they too have evolved. Chimps are our cousins... not our parents. If our most recent common ancestor (MRCA) was still about today then we would think that they look like chimps, more than us, thus why people say "we evolved from apes", which can confuse alot of people.

That's it, last time I looked, in a nutshell - if ever millions upon millions upon millions of years could ever fit inside a nutshell that is.

The mutated ape, would, yes, mate with a normal ape/s and thus introduce that specific gene into the groups gene pool. Eventually that gene would pass on onto enough apes to create a new species. It's a long process and can be an effect of a culmination of mutations also.

Evolutionary science is always being enhanced tho so there may be more up-to-date information I am unaware of. The last update on human evolution that I read was a study from the US that showed that the human-like populations and chimp-like population diverged from the MRCA and then converged together again (interbred) to create a human-chimp-like hybrid population(which later bred back into one of the parental populations), and then the human-like pop. and chimp-like pop. diverged again.... this time for good, about 5 million years ago, eventually creating us and modern day chimps.

 

[NPBlue]

It's fine if you are a dog, or a camel, or some other animal. All these scientists have been running all over the world, looking at fossils, whatever, and they have still not connected us, Homo Sapien Sapien, with any other living thing on earth. The missing link I believe it is called. Apparently, we appeared out of the blue, from nowhere. There is nothing to connect us with any other living animal on earth.

rubbish, 97% of your dna could be found in a chimp.

chop up a human and compare it to any number of mammals. pretty similair if you ask me. same skeletal structure, just modified a bit.same organs. same bodily fluids, proteins, everything works basically in the same way. same nervous systems, with a bloody big brain with all this grey stuff around it. hmm thats a bit odd, dont see much of that elsewhere. must take a lot of energy to power that thing, wonder why it's got one of them.

I apologise for picking this thread, but I never mentioned DNA. I agree that 97% of DNA can be found in a Chimpazee, but look at the difference between us! 3% difference, and we are completely different.

The point I was making was that over the years, having a belief in God has helped me cope with some situations. The most comforting words I heard, after I had laid my father to rest, was talking to the vicar after the service and he said 'your father is not up there, looking down on you, wanting you to be sad. He is up there, wanting you to be happy'.

My belief in God, and the vicars words when I went to bed that night, after two weeks of absolute shit, was the best thing anyone had said to me in those circumstances.

I am comfortable with my belief, and I am not ashamed of it. Like I wrote, it helped me that night, and it will help me again.



humans fit very neatly into the family of 'homonids', which includes the great apes. more specifically, the sub-tribe Hominina, to which we belong, are characterized by their upright stance when walking, large brains, small teeth, and by their use of tools. these are traits that we share with several extinct species. all of which comes from fossil evidence. the exact lineage is not known. but to say that indicates that we came from nowhere, that we are not related to the others who share our charectoristics, is like saying, because we cant make out a digit in a phone number that someone wrote down for us , that all the other digits are therefore not part of the correct number. faith is one thing, but that would require people to ignore what is infront of their eyes.

humans may have special talents, but we are not apart from the living world. find something else to pin your self-esteem on, because this argument was won and lost before it started. yet still it revolves, said gallileo, apocryphally, under his breath. presumably because he knew that if he had seen it and proven it, others would be able to experience the proof through their own senses...

 

[NPBlue]

I don't know how it happened, but I wrote a bit in the middle of the previous post, and I can't be bothered writing it again.

So there.

 

[bizzbo]

i read it.

glad u found a source of strength in difficult times

3% can indeed make quite a difference. i only seek to challenge the notion that the 97% is irrelevant to who we are.

 

[johnny crossan]

Seriously how the fuck people are stupid enough to dedicate or at least let their lives be heavily influenced by shit that has little or no proof and what I personally would describe as absolutely fucking ridiculous is way beyond me. You can include god, allah, vishnu and any other made up piece of shit with that as well

I reckon in 100s of years as science develops further we will have most if not all the answers and people will look back and laugh at the absolutely pathetic ideas so many people have on religion. They will wonder how fucking stupid so many people were and what the fuck they were doing killing each other over blatant fictional bullshit.

People used to believe the world was flat and you'd fall off the end but we now know that is laughable, I think the same sort of thing will happen with religion

100% AGREE.

How the f*ck can people believe in religion is totally beyond me, not a shred of proof. Christians actually believe that the made up tosser Jesus turned water into wine and walked on water, i'ts physically impossible but yet people see it as truth.

If i went out in town claiming to be the son of god and claiming i could turn water into wine i'd be branded a loony by the very same people who go to church and listen to the ramblings of a sex pest peado priest.

Rant over.

The above says much about the current state of of our culture, education and values. Expletive ridden, uncaring, prejudiced and foolish. I await the customary staunch defence from
Elanjo, Peedubya et al.

Back to the programme, I've just watched it again and feel I was rather unfair in characterizing the presenter Conor Cunningham as Father Ted. I do wish he had been a little more assertive in his questioning of the various luminaries instead of adopting the role of the nodding silent listener. Anyway, IMO his argument is sound. Here he is being interviewed on the local BBC & sounding a little more confident if anyone is interested.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/nottingham/realmedia/2009/02/conor_cunningham.ram" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/nottingham/realmed ... ingham.ram</a>