·  News ·  Travel ·  Food ·  Arts ·  Science ·  Sports ·  Advice ·  Religion ·  Life ·  Greensboro · 

Charles Darwin Day

by Liv | Published on February 12th, 2006, 11:31 am | Religion
Charles Darwin

Today marks the anniversary of one of the most important figures in mans existence on earth, Charles Darwin. Today on February 12th, 1809 author Charles Darwin, writer of On The Origin of Species was born.

I think its important to sit down with our children and explain the importance of Darwin, his unique and important gifts he gave to society, and most importantly how people of little conscience have recently have tried to undermine nearly 200 years of forward movement in logic and science.

It so easy for any of us to get lost in the conservative religious influence that is so prevalent here in the bible belt. Today is the day of all days to know and to teach our true history, to separate religion from science, to present fact from faith, and clarify for each one of us the miracle of evolution.

Darwin Day
 
 
I think a good amount of people agree with you Matt. There are some that don't, but we can chalk that up to ignorance and stupidity. The one thing I've found over the years that is so peculiar about people with these thoughts and views, is most of them have never read the Bible front to back. Seriously, next time you bump into one of these ultra-christians, ask them. Have you read the Bible in its entirety? I've never gotten a yes. I'm sure there are some, but most people like to pick and choose. Most people don't even realize the first book of the bible Genesis, contradicts itself. You can deny religion based on lack of evidence, but to deny evolution with its overwelming amount of scientific proof is just silly.

I'm sure as we as a soceity become more educated this will change. It really has no choice. One day some piece of evidence will be so overwelmingly daming to Christian beliefs, it won't be able to be ignored. But then again religion will probably change its tune, and keep on trucking.
February 13th, 2006, 8:17 am
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
I have myself been on both sides of the coin. My grandfather was a preacher, my family outside of my mom & dad are all Catholic. I was brought up Methodist.

I had never even questioned it till I got to college. I don't know why, but for some reason I asked Dr Bill Lewis, a professor at GTCC about his religious beliefs. Surprisingly he humbly stated that over a lifetime of evidence he's seen, he's inclined to believe God does not exist. This was the first Atheist or Agnostic I had ever met. But he made me think. While I didn't make the change to agnostic overnight, the ability to question religion led me to being agnostic. I still believe there could be a God, but based on what I know he's not a very nice guy.
February 13th, 2006, 9:04 am
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
Gotta take this one being an anthropologist and all... Went to Cath. school - learned both scientific and creationist points of view there.

Spirituality does NOT have to enter my scientific views.

But,I have no problem believing that my "god" fascilitated the creation of the earth through "It's" own scientific means. For all I know, god IS science for science cannot exist in complete chaos. It has to have order and "god" creates order.
Therefore, each is essential to understanding the world around us. Confused yet?

As for Darwin himself, he tussled with his own spiritual issues, found written in his bio. He discusses how he knows his findings will cause problems within the church, but that the issues of science and faith should be seperated, that it is possible to have both as long as neither interferes with the other.

This is NOT to be confused with the famous "seperation of church and state" issue. If one where to look more clearly at that particular phrase, it is mearly to keep the government from being influenced by one religion or another. As many of you know, not all countries believe that, such as Arab states,the only Bhuddist nation, Bhutan or Iceland where the "national" religion is Asatru.

Basically, I think that creationism could be taught in public schools as long as it was part of a World Religion class that was not mandatory for graduation. Even in Cath. school we learned world religions so there is really no excuse other than fear...fear that our children may learn a little about faith in general? Taught in a science class - NO WAY. I'm not going back to the 1800's man...
March 1st, 2006, 12:18 am
Sebeq
 
I was going to say the same thing last night when I saw it posted, Matt, but I wrote it off. But your words are my sentiments exactly.
June 18th, 2006, 9:17 am
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
That's not racism, that's natural selection, and his observation on the failable human character, and that in the end we are all just monkeys... like you.
June 18th, 2006, 2:50 pm
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
Jovick wrote:
Liv wrote:That's not racism, that's natural selection, and his observation on the failable human character, and that in the end we are all just monkeys... like you.


I certainly hope you didn't mean that as an insult. Anyway... my descendants (or yours) were not monkeys and the earth is only about 6,000 years old. That's a pretty radical thought, huh?


Um.... silly, but not radical. But your free to choose your own delusions.
June 18th, 2006, 8:11 pm
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
Hi Jovick,

You're throwing a lot of arguments out there, and this thread is kind of sprawling, so I'm just going to try to focus on just a few points. The first link you provided has a nice long list of things to consider, but a few moments of thought or research show that they don't really support a young age for the earth. A few examples:

Magnetic field decay: The earth's magnetic field has increased and decreased over time, and even switched directions. Therefore, its current decrease doesn't give any indication as to the earth's age.

Topsoil depth: Topsoil is eroded away as well as deposited, so topsoil depth doesn't give any indication as to the age of the earth.

Niagara Falls: Since no one (other than Creationists) claims that Niagara Falls has existed as long as the earth has, the age of Niagara gives no indication as to the age of the earth.

Historical records: "If mankind had been living on earth for millions of years, we should find records extending back at least 500,000 years." Not if writing wasn't invented until much more recently than that. Besides, modern man and Neanderthals didn't exist until closer to 150,000 years ago, not millions of years ago, as your link claims.

Et Cetera. All the other items on that list can be similarly debunked.

Regarding your claims about there being no geologic column ... it's a simple fact that fossils appear in the same order in the fossil record. You'll never find a human fossil appearing below a dinosaur fossil for instance. It's worth noting that this fact was discovered before the theory of evolution was formulated.

On that topic, since I've addressed a few of your points, I hope you'll address this one, taken from Ed Brayton at Dispatches From the Culture Wars:

As you go up the geologic column, dated both relatively (in relation to younger strata above and older strata below) and absolutely (via hundreds of concordant radiometric dates using a variety of techniques), all over the world, you find the same successional order of appearance. At the lowest levels you find nothing but bacteria. Even among bacteria there is a specific order, divided into prokaryotes and eukaryotes. That is all there was on the earth for about a billion years. Then the first multicellular life appears in the form of stromatolites and, along with bacteria, are all that there was for over 2 billion years. Then the first metazoic life appears around 600 million years ago, all marine invertebrates. These marine invertebrates become more diversified - trilobites, mollusks, brachiopods, echinoderms, etc, and after 150 million years or so we find jawless fishes, the first vertebrates. Vertebrate fishes become more and more diversified, then the first amphibians appear. Amphibians become more diversified for about 70 million years and then the first reptiles appear. Reptiles become more diversified over the course of about 80 million years and then the first mammals appear in very limited niches. Then the first birds begin to appear after another 70 million years or so. Reptiles dominate throughout this period, especially dinosaurs, and then 65 million years ago they become extinct. After that, mammals suddenly begin to diversify and appear in greater numbers and greater variety. 10 million years later, the first primates appear. Then the first marine mammals.

This order of appearance is the same all over the world no matter where you look. And within each of these groups, you find an equally interesting order. The first amphibians to appear are nearly identical to the shallow marine fish they are thought to have evolved from and as you move forward in time they become increasingly less fish-like, more diversified and better adapted to terrestrial life. The first mammals to appear are virtually indistinguishable from therapsid reptiles and, again, as you more forward in time they spread out, become increasingly less reptile-like and more diversified and more like modern mammals. The first birds to appear are, quite literally, feathered dinosaurs and, once again, as new species appear they become more diversified, better adapted to avian lifestyles, they gradually lose many of the reptilian traits and look more and more like modern birds.

This exceptionless order is a fact that requires explanation. Evolutionary theory provides that explanation.


How do you explain that succession of fossils in the fossil record, even leaving aside the absolute dates? For instance, why are there no plant fossils mixed in with those bacteria fossils at the lowest levels?
June 19th, 2006, 11:32 pm
PotatoStew
 
Sorry, one more:

"Let’s see…. If you have a a bunch of very large boulders and a lot of small rocks and you swish them around in a large pool of water which ones do you suppose will sink closer to the bottom?"

This neglects the fact that many dinosaurs were as small as or smaller than humans. Some were as small as chickens. So the boulder swishing theory doesn't wash.
June 19th, 2006, 11:37 pm
PotatoStew
 
Long time lurker, first time post. Sorry for the length, but this hit a chord I guess :)

Jovick, this truly frightens me. Its dogmatic attitudes towards progress and science that make me rethink my hopes of humanity taking that next critical step in development.

The thing that really worries me is the ineptitude for many like Jovick to see the world for how it is, and the (apparent) complete inability to comprehend scientific terms and realities. Perhaps that is the real answer. After all, its much much simpler to believe the proverbial magic wand was waved and *poof* there it was, all in a neat little package..no messy studying and learning new terms and concepts.

Then again, perhaps its simply the possibility of something in science disproving (yet more) biblical concepts, perpetuating the great underlying fear (for the faithful individual), that the house of cards will potentially fall. Sometimes faith is all someone might have, they have spent years building and inventing their understandings of the universe through the rose colored filter of their personal interpretation of the chosen doctrine. This is religion's self defence mechanism, and it has a weelky support group.

If science is such a threat to your faith, and thus your faith must dictate what you read, hear, see, study or expose yourself to, then you have to ask yourself this..how strong are the legs my religion stands on? If unable to withstand the realities of the world (supposedly created by your 'one-true-god'), why would it be at odds with your doctrine? Finally, is this really something you should be living by, or worse, telling others to live by? Don't fear change. Keep your faith but be open to it evolving into some other form to meet with the ebb-and-flow of the world around you. We have advanced a lot since the 5th century BC when that book was believed to be written. Imagine if you could travel back in time and bring someone back from that period. Bring them into todays world and somehow communicate with them for a while. I guarantee you wont want them telling you how to run your life after you hear how they live with their dogmatic laws, education, and lifestyle.

If you take a good look around you will discover that the universe is anything but intelligently designed. Unless of course by "intelligent design" you mean "chaos with an acute case of turrets and a touch of blindness". Natural selection is a fact, and to say that humans would somehow be immune to the same natural laws that other life forms of the same biosphere is borderline lunacy and the height of egomania. This kind of resistance to reality has to stop for the human race to move forward.

The immediate threat here is usually the ones who are most wrong shout the loudest, and the ones whose religious views are threatened fight the deadliest in large groups. My fear is that this attitude is becoming more prevalent in our nation and is a threat to our republic and sensibilities. When we throw out reason in the face of fairy tales, we work to nullify not only the work that came before us, but the potential for future discovery and advancement. We may even deny some child the possibility of being the next Einstein or Copernicus for fear of ridicule or persecution.

Is science wrong at times? Sure! The important thing to remember though is that its discoveries, theories, and practices are backed up by observable, recordable, and reproducible data. Biblical theories however are backed up only by interpretation, hearsay and a lot of yelling and screaming.

Sorry for the ramble. Jovick, I'm sure you are a nice person and I dont mean to come across as putting down your faith or religion, I just cant understand why those like you can't adapt it to modern life.
"You can't put the civil rights of a minority up for a majority vote."
June 20th, 2006, 10:29 am
User avatar
Sanjuro
Expert...on everything...
 
No offense. I couldn’t get by the first sentence. One would have to assume the there is a geologic column. ... Again… show me a geologic column.


The entire geologic column exists in North Dakota, as well as in 25 other locations around the world:

    The Ghadames Basin in Libya
    The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
    The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
    The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
    The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
    The Adana Basin in Turkey
    The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
    The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
    The Carpathian Basin in Poland
    The Baltic Basin in the USSR
    The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
    The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
    The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
    The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
    The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
    The Jiuxi Basin China
    The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
    The Tarim Basin China
    The Szechwan Basin China
    The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
    The Williston Basin in North Dakota
    The Tampico Embayment Mexico
    The Bogata Basin Colombia
    The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
    The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta


The source for that info is here, including a detailed description of the instance of the column in North Dakota. I'd recommend reading through that entire page - it's pretty informative.

Could you answer my question now? I'll try to address some of your other responses later tonight.
June 20th, 2006, 5:59 pm
PotatoStew
 
You will find your answer(s) right here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/fossil.asp

I think that article pretty much sums it up pretty clearly and it has the appropriate footnotes as well so you can do your research.

Glad I could help you.


Thanks for the link - unfortunately it doesn't really answer anything.

The main point of it seems to be that the geologic column is allegedly falling apart because there have been some fossils of species discovered that extend further in time than was previously thought - for instance, the Lystrosaurus, which was previously believed to have lived only during the Triassic period has occassionally been found extending into the subsequent Permian period. This is hardly earth shattering - it simply means that those species either formed a bit earlier than previously believed or took longer to go extinct than previously believed. The fact that their overlap with other species has increased as we gather more fossils shouldn't be surprising. In other words, this is a far cry from dinosaurs and man living together.

It's like saying that if archaeologists unearthed evidence that the first European settlers arrived in the New World 50 years earlier than previously thought, that it must mean that the pilgrims were contemporaries of Julius Caesar.

You still have the overall progression through the strata (a fact which your article admits, by the way) to deal with - from bacteria, to simple, multi-celled organisms, to marine invertabrates, and so on. Finding that an animal lived a little longer than previously thought doesn't change this.
June 20th, 2006, 9:28 pm
PotatoStew
 
While I'm waiting for a reply to my last post...

I'm hesitant to address the side points in this thread, since the discussion is all over the place already, but there are just too many comments out there screaming for attention. Let me hit a few of them:

Just because you say nobody has found something with something else exclude the possibility


That's hardly supporting your claim, or even offering evidence for anything. Just because we haven't found the wreckage of alien spaceships deep beneath the Egyptian pyramids doesn't exclude the possibility that it's there. Yet, until evidence is offered, there's no reason to believe that possibility. The fact remains that if the victims of a flood were buried according to their size, as you suggest, logically we should see humans appearing lower in the fossil record than small dinosaurs. Yet we don't. Therefore - so far - the evidence does not support your concept of hydrological sorting, yet it is consistent with dinosaurs existing before humans.

You can’t really prove that the magnetic field has switched. You can only provide a theory backed up by few 2nd tiered facts.


Despite your claims otherwise, this and your other comments about "proof" and "theories" suggest that you really don't understand scientific terminology. Nothing is ever "proven" in science. Theories gain provisional acceptance, but there's always the possibility that some aspect of a theory may be replaced or overturned. Additionally, a scientific "theory" is not the same as the colloquial use of the word - it's not a guess or a hunch. Scientific theories explain facts, are supported by evidence, and can be used to make predictions. If something is a theory, then it's been pretty well supported.

(Regarding topsoil): Actually I do tend to agree with a bit here although I’m not sure if its equal. Just a little difference over millions of years would seem to put all land under water though.


Whether it's equal, the point is that you can't determine the age of the earth from topsoil because it's being deposited and eroded at varying rates.

I think most scientist would agree that the falls have been there 4000-6000 years though. Would you not agree?


I think I read about 7000 years, but again, the point is that there's no reason to think the age of Niagara Falls is the same as the age of the earth.

There actually is no such thing as prehistoric IMO so well just have to agree to disagree.


At least you admit that this is an opinion. If you can just make a naked assertion such as "there's no such thing as prehistoric" then why are you bothering trying to present any evidence or arguments for anything at all? Why not just say "That's how I think God did it" and leave it at that?

Natural selection is NOT a fact - it is a theory. I believe in adaptation such as micro-evolution. However, Natural selection (which refers to macro-evolution) I do not agree with as it is simply alternate terminology for evolution.


Wrong - natural selection is not the same thing as evolution - it's one of the mechanisms that drives evolution. Darwin's finch beaks were examples of natural selection. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is an example of natural selection. And before you say "But they didn't turn into different animals", my point is only that you are misunderstanding what natural selection actually is if you think it's just another term for "evolution".

You may want to begin reevaluating your sources, as they seem to contain many fallacious arguments (topsoil, niagara falls) and misconceptions about evolution.
June 21st, 2006, 12:39 am
PotatoStew
 
Jovick,

I'm glad to hear that you realize the things you said in your last post. These aren't (or shouldn't be) salvation issues. I feel like our portion of the conversation was still civil, so I'm more than happy to continue discussing the topic if you'd like. I used to be a creationist myself, believe it or not, so I understand where you're coming from with much of this.

Whether you post again or not, I would encourage you expand your list of resources beyond the usual creationist apologetic material. In case you haven't seen it yet, a great starting point is:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Take care.
June 21st, 2006, 8:04 am
PotatoStew
 
Now the real question is not if the world is 6000 years old, but is Darwin's turtle really 176 years old.

Charles Darwin's tortoise dies
From: AAP

June 23, 2006


THE world's oldest animal in captivity has died on the Sunshine Coast at the ripe old age of 176.
Giant Galapagos tortoise Harriet has died of a suspected heart attack.

She was a star attraction at Steve Irwin's Australia Zoo since the 1980s and even features in the Guinness Book of Records for her longevity.

Her history is as colourful as the hibiscus flowers she lovingly munched on.

It is believed Harriet was one of three animals naturalist Charles Darwin brought back from his trip to the Galapagos Islands in 1835 and which led to his theories of evolution and natural selection.

A few years later, Sir Charles gave them to a Brisbane-bound friend.

For about 100 years Harriet was mistakenly thought to be a male.

At 176, Harriet was recognised as the world's oldest living chelonian - a reptile with a shell or bony plates.

Mr Irwin said he considered Harriet a member of the family.

"Harriet has been a huge chunk of the Irwin family's life," he said.

"I have grown up with this gorgeous old girl and so have my kids.

"She is possibly one of the oldest living creatures on the planet and her passing today is not only a great loss for the world but a very sad day for my family.

"She was a grand old lady."
June 23rd, 2006, 5:31 pm
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
I guess it was inevitable -- evolutionists are flocking to a mysterious image of Charles Darwin, hoping for help from the famous scientist.

darwin_article_large.article_large.jpg


They may have to wait a while... :lol:
September 5th, 2008, 12:09 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
uuggggh.. so you DID post it after all... You do realize some people on here dont 'get' irony, right? :lol:
September 5th, 2008, 12:18 pm
User avatar
Sanjuro
Expert...on everything...
 
It was a risk I HAD to take. 8)
September 5th, 2008, 12:27 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
They shouldn't worry. They'll all likely see him again one day.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second,it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
September 5th, 2008, 12:31 pm
User avatar
BecauseHeLives
 
BecauseHeLives wrote:They shouldn't worry. They'll all likely see him again one day.


Captain Buzzkill swings in, lips flapping....
September 5th, 2008, 12:34 pm
User avatar
Sanjuro
Expert...on everything...
 
The Jesus Moth is sacrilege. It's obviously a image of Darwin. There's no other rational explanation of the surge of Darwin sightings
All stupid ideas pass through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is ridiculed. Third, it is ridiculed
September 5th, 2008, 12:37 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
Sanjuro wrote:
BecauseHeLives wrote:They shouldn't worry. They'll all likely see him again one day.


Captain Buzzkill swings in, lips flapping....


ROFLMFAO

That just made diet coke come out of my nose!!! AAAAAAAAAaaaaaarrrggghhh it hurts, but it was so worth it.

:lol:
When it is not in our power to follow what is true, we ought to follow what is most probable. –Rene Descartes

I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be. -Douglas Adams
September 5th, 2008, 12:40 pm
User avatar
Serendipitous
This is my world and I am the world leader...pretend.
 
Location: in the now
Sanjuro wrote:
BecauseHeLives wrote:They shouldn't worry. They'll all likely see him again one day.


Captain Buzzkill swings in, lips flapping....


Mission accomplished.
September 5th, 2008, 12:41 pm
User avatar
BecauseHeLives
 
BecauseHeLives wrote:They shouldn't worry. They'll all likely see him again one day.


Like Frosty?

Open in New Window

Open in New Window

September 5th, 2008, 1:07 pm
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin were born on the same day: 12 February 1809. The scientist and the politician each changed the world in their own way.

Quiz Time

February 12th, 2009, 7:58 am
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC

Return to Religion