|
|
|
no1nose
BANNED
50 Posts |
 Posted - 06/11/2008 : 19:33:49
|
Many words have been written about the differences between evolution and Christianity. But in many ways the ideas of evolution parallel that of Christianity. For example both Evolution and Christianity have transformation as a central theme. For Christianity it is the transformation of the inner person and for evolution it the change of the outer person. While the two focus on different things they are both still talking about changing what we are.
Evolution and Christianity follow a "redeemer" scenario. In Christianity Jesus is the redeemer and those who follow him are "saved". In Evolution the redeemer is the one member of a species that has a mutation that is advantageous and leads the way to survival. The themes of transformation and redemption in Christianity became "mutation" and "survival" in Evolution. Finally, in evolution this changed member of a species must out procreate the other members for the species to be changed. Even in this Evolution parallels Christianity. For while Jesus did not have children - the spiritual "genes" of his identity are in billions of people making him the most “imitated” person to have ever lived.
So similar are underlying themes between Evolution and Christianity that it seems unlikely that they are a product of chance. It seems unlikely that Darwin would have developed his theory if he had not lived in a Christian society or had he not trained to be a clergyman. His interest may have been in the natural world but his training was in medicine and then divinity. His theory did not come out of a vacuum but adapted what he already knew, Darwin barrowed heavily from a Christian worldview for his theory which is basically a Christian framework with new names.
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 19:59:17 [Permalink]
|
| Evolution and Christianity follow a "redeemer" scenario. In Christianity Jesus is the redeemer and those who follow him are "saved". In Evolution the redeemer is the one member of a species that has a mutation that is advantageous and leads the way to survival. |
Thats a... unique... point of view.
edited to add: Your evo is also only partly right. In some instances a single individual can passs on a beneficial mutation... but more often its a matter of variation within the norm and environmental conditions that favor a variation. Over time those small selection effects add up to major changes.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 06/11/2008 20:03:23 |
 |
|
|
no1nose
BANNED
50 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 20:06:51 [Permalink]
|
| Thanks for your reply. Darwin and others at that time got their ideas from somewhere - people seem to think that it was all original thinking. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 20:15:55 [Permalink]
|
Well, no, most scientists build their work on the work of others. I absolutely agree with you there.
We can probably trace the roots of modern science back 2500 years reliably, and I'd speculate that critical thinking people were around even before that.
As for Darwin, his work on evolution was definitely building on the work of others. Darwin, as all good scientists do, acknowledges those he is working from.
Would you care for a list?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 21:36:00 [Permalink]
|
Also; Darwin had a strong Christian education; he even considered becoming a pastor for a long time.
Part of Darwin's idea also came from observing the cruelty of the world. Darwin had difficulty accepting that all these cruelty was just a pointless side effect. The theory of Evolution change these cruelty in nature not useless but a required motor of progress.
But, ultimately, Darwin did not really adapt Christianity. He only described what he saw and explain it the best he could. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 21:57:08 [Permalink]
|
You offer a weak and tortured analogy, then use that analogy as evidence that Darwin couldn't have worked out his theory of evolution without Christianity? I don't believe I have ever seen a more blatant example of a Christian trying to steal credit for another man's hard work.
Here's an idea: not everything in the world has to do with your religion. Darwin worked out his theory by studious observation of the natural world, by not allowing himself to be influenced by religious mythologies. If Christianity is to be credited with anything, it should be with limiting men's imaginations and blinding them to the true workings of nature. Thankfully, Darwin was able to overcome such horrid indoctrination.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 06/11/2008 21:58:09 |
|
|
|
no1nose
BANNED
50 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 21:57:26 [Permalink]
|
Yes Darwin had problems with natural evil.
I hope that you guys don't believe that "Evolution" is really out there and not something that exists in the minds of some people.
Are our minds capable of interpreting observations of the real world correctly?
The answer to this is no. Our minds function at least one level below the real world. We think sequentially and in a linear straight line from one observation to the next whereas the real world is both linear and nonlinear and at time discontinuous.
Hard physical evidence demonstrates that reality is nonlinear (c squared, r squared etc) and discontinuous (quantum). However the human mind is not capable of rational nonlinear and discontinuous thought. Instead we think sequentially and in a linear straight line (A is followed by B which is followed by C etc). The Theory of Evolution portrays a linear and sequential natural world and is most likely in just another limited human construct and not a accurate representation of the ultimate reality of nature.
Quantum mechanics shows us that nature is discontinuous. An electron can exist around an atom only in certain places and the space between these places is forever empty. In space electrons pop in and out of existence from seemingly nowhere. Evolution predicts a smooth sequential and continuous transition of life. But the fossil record does not match this prediction. Instead our record of the natural world is discontinuous and at time non sequential and at times non linear. The natural conclusion to this is that the Theory of Evolution is a product of our minds and does not define the natural world with any great accuracy.
The point is that our minds are incapable of mirroring the real world. The information we take in through our senses and from experience is simplified into a continuous sequential and linear thought form that are built up into world views. Past history has shown us that these world views have always proven to be false. And without a doubt evolution with also fail.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 22:20:07 [Permalink]
|
Welcome to the SFN!Originally posted by no1nose
Are our minds capable of interpreting observations of the real world correctly?
The answer to this is no. |
Speak for yourself, please.| Our minds function at least one level below the real world. We think sequentially and in a linear straight line from one observation to the next whereas the real world is both linear and nonlinear and at time discontinuous. |
Your premise is not true. Not all thinking is sequential and linear.| Hard physical evidence demonstrates that reality is nonlinear (c squared, r squared etc) and discontinuous (quantum). However the human mind is not capable of rational nonlinear and discontinuous thought. |
In which case, it would have been impossible for anyone to comprehend c2 or quantum physics, and you have shot your argument in its foot right at the start.| The Theory of Evolution portrays a linear and sequential natural world... |
Creationists portray the theory of evolution in such a manner, but the actual modern theory of evolution is neither. In other words, your premise is very much mistaken, so anything that follows (your conclusion, for example) cannot be relied upon.| Quantum mechanics shows us that nature is discontinuous. An electron can exist around an atom only in certain places and the space between these places is forever empty. |
This is simply wrong, also.| In space electrons pop in and out of existence from seemingly nowhere. |
Yeah, it's weird, ain't it?| Evolution predicts a smooth sequential and continuous transition of life. |
No, it doesn't.| But the fossil record does not match this prediction. |
That's because fossilization isn't a smooth, linear or continuous process.| Instead our record of the natural world is discontinuous and at time non sequential and at times non linear. The natural conclusion to this is that the Theory of Evolution is a product of our minds and does not define the natural world with any great accuracy. |
Yes, the natural conclusion given incorrect premises is also unreliable, and in this case it is demonstrably wrong.
And, of course, the theory of evolution doesn't define anything about the natural world. It is nothing more than a description and explanation of what we see. And we've seen evolution occur, many times, in the last century alone.| The point is that our minds are incapable of mirroring the real world. The information we take in through our senses and from experience is simplified into a continuous sequential and linear thought form that are built up into world views. Past history has shown us that these world views have always proven to be false. And without a doubt evolution with also fail. |
That must mean that your world view will also, eventually, be proven false, seeing as how you demand that your world view (whatever it is) cannot possibly mirror the real world. And really, it looks like it has already been. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 22:59:19 [Permalink]
|
no1nose said:
| Evolution predicts a smooth sequential and continuous transition of life. |
No, it doesn't. No clue where you get that from, honestly thats a new claim for me. So you get at least one point for originality.
Evolution predicts (among other things) that species change over time when influenced by selection pressures. If those pressures are to abrupt or severe (K-T boundary event, for example) then species go extinct.
| And without a doubt evolution with also fail. |
I'll assume you mean to say "will also fail", as thats the only thing that makes your sentence coherent in your context.
Yeah. There is a small problem with your claim. Evolution, the noun, is an observable process. We have 3.5 billion years worth of evidence that clearly shows the process in action. We have dozens of modern examples of evolution occuring before our very eyes as well (google up "pepper moth" or "nylon bug").
Then there is the boatload of other evidence, like human chromosome 2, shared ERV insertions among the primates (that show us a clear record of common descent), and slew of other things. If you'd like a reference to a nice catalog of the evidence:
Start here.
Feel free to ask questions.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 23:03:32 [Permalink]
|
Where to begin? I think I will just take your last paragraph.
no1nose:
The point is that our minds are incapable of mirroring the real world. The information we take in through our senses and from experience is simplified into a continuous sequential and linear thought form that are built up into world views. |
If that were the case, then you have no business predicting the fate of evolution, because you can't know what is real. You only have your worldview.
no1nose:
Past history has shown us that these world views have always proven to be false. And without a doubt evolution with also fail. |
Without a doubt? But didn't you just say that you can't know what is real? So how could you possibly know that? Do you have some special ability that everyone else lacks? Of course, I am assuming you are human, with one of those human minds that is “incapable of mirroring the real world.” Be consistant.
By the way, you really should learn a bit more about evolution before making preposterous statements about it.
Also, quantum mechanics, even if you had it right, describes the world of the very very small. Biological evolution takes place in the macro world which operates by a different set of rules. As I understand it, physicists have yet to come up with an accepted theory that unifies the two, but they are working on it.
I am sure that there are a few people here that will attempt to enlighten you on these subjects. Let's see how open your mind is…
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
no1nose
BANNED
50 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 01:13:26 [Permalink]
|
My motivation for writing this post is not to change your minds but to give you something to think about and to test my beliefs in an open forum. Steel sharpens steel as it is written so thanks to you who care and are willing to make the effort to fight for what you think is right.
I am still very much convinced that Evolution is simply an idea in some people's minds and not the reality of the natural world. It is no coincidence that it parallels Christianity so closely - this was where Darwin stole most of “his” ideas.
Both Evolution and Christianity are about the transformation of one species into another. For Christianity it is the creation of the new man. Darwin's scenario begins with one member being different at birth. This follows Christianity as Jesus was different – being conceived by the Holy Spirit. In Evolution this “mutation” gives the individual an advantage in survival. Having been raised from the dead proves that Jesus was a survivor. Finally in evolution the member of a species are not like this new individual becomes “extinct”. This too follows the Christianity in that those who do not accept Jesus are lost. Please note that none of these ideas are self evident in the natural world. They were read into it by Darwin's preconceived ideas.
|
| Edited by - no1nose on 06/12/2008 01:30:57 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 03:30:23 [Permalink]
|
Hi no1nose & welcome to SFN
Wow. Where to start? Ok, first off I'd like to state that while Darwin shared the same thoughts of his father, Erasmus Darwin, and others, he got his basic ideas from his studies of the flora and fauna found in South American and on the Galapagos Islands during his voyage on the HMS Beagle. His observations and conclusions from that were entirely original.
Now, just because an individual organism is born with a certain, advantageous mutation, there is no guarantee that said mutation will find its way into it's population. And even if it does, there is no guarantee that it will become manifest. Y'see, evolution works best in small, pocket populations isolated from from others of the species. By the time they might rejoin other populations, if indeed they should, it is conceivable that they could be so genetically different that they can no longer interbreed, and thus, we have a new species. If that population survives -- one good flood of far less size & intensity than the Noah myth could wipe out the whole shootin' match.
And I must remind, hopefully unnecessarily, that only populations evolve; individuals merely bear mutations.
Comparing evolution to any religion is futile to the point of being border-line apologetics. Religion is spirituality, and evolution does not recognize such due to being based strictly upon physical evidence. It does not deal with resurrections nor even faith.
Dude posted an excellent link and I'll put it up again because it gives evidentially sound answers to 'most any question you might ask. Talk origins. Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology.
The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.
|
It's probably the best reference on-line for this topic.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Archereon
New Member
New Zealand
32 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 03:33:01 [Permalink]
|
| No1nose take a wonder over to Mr PZ Myers blog and read about this brilliant article about e.coli and the changes observed over 30000+ generations to a point where it evolved the ability to live on a new type of food. That would be like humans starting to be able to breathe exhaust fumes without harm. |
West Ham Claret and Blue Army NZ div |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 05:16:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by no1nose
My motivation for writing this post is not to change your minds but to give you something to think about... |
You say this as if you know that we haven't thought about it.| ...and to test my beliefs in an open forum. Steel sharpens steel as it is written so thanks to you who care and are willing to make the effort to fight for what you think is right. |
If your statements here are correct - if you're being honest with yourself - then you need to (it should be a moral imperative) admit when you are wrong.
For example, your idea that because humans think linearly but nature isn't means that we simply shouldn't be able to comprehend constructions involving r2, much less write them down. Yet we can, because we have. So this premise upon which you base so much argument is very much in error, and in the spirit of testing your beliefs you should reject it.| I am still very much convinced that Evolution is simply an idea in some people's minds and not the reality of the natural world. |
As has already been pointed out, your conviction is based upon mistaken premises, errors in logic and (it appears) a lack of knowledge of the evidence.| It is no coincidence that it parallels Christianity so closely... |
It only parallels Christianity if one twists the meanings of words. Evolutionary theory seeks to explain biodiversity. Christianity seeks to dictate the terms of salvation.| ...this was where Darwin stole most of “his” ideas. |
The contributions that made Darwin famous are natural selection (which fails to parallel "salvation" because there is no pre-ordained means of selection) and common descent (which might parallel the old Jewish fable of Adam and Eve). Evolution itself - the fact that species change over time - was known before Darwin's birth.| Both Evolution and Christianity are about the transformation of one species into another. For Christianity it is the creation of the new man. |
Only by giving "species" a new meaning.| Darwin's scenario begins with one member being different at birth. This follows Christianity as Jesus was different – being conceived by the Holy Spirit. |
Actually, Jesus would have to be seen as a hybrid. Many hybrids in nature are sterile, making them evolutionary dead-ends.| In Evolution this “mutation” gives the individual an advantage in survival. Having been raised from the dead proves that Jesus was a survivor. |
This is what H. meant by "tortured." Your comparison strains both biology and theology to the breaking point.| Finally in evolution the member of a species are not like this new individual becomes “extinct”. |
This is false.| This too follows the Christianity in that those who do not accept Jesus are lost. |
Except that in biology, if we have two species that split from one, we cannot tell which will go extinct until it nearly is s |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 06:21:55 [Permalink]
|
| Evolution and Christianity follow a "redeemer" scenario. In Christianity Jesus is the redeemer and those who follow him are "saved". In Evolution the redeemer is the one member of a species that has a mutation that is advantageous and leads the way to survival. The themes of transformation and redemption in Christianity became "mutation" and "survival" in Evolution. Finally, in evolution this changed member of a species must out procreate the other members for the species to be changed. Even in this Evolution parallels Christianity. For while Jesus did not have children - the spiritual "genes" of his identity are in billions of people making him the most “imitated” person to have ever lived. |
1) You assume that evolution leads to the elimination of the majority, this is not the case. Just because one group breaks off the pack does not mean the old pack dies and/or is useless. One does not need to 'outbreed to suceed' all one needs is a new environment where the previous iteration is not overly dominant.
2) The rest is some of the most ignorant and self-centered crap Ive ever read. Jesus'(supposed)lack of children would mean that he is one of the least "'imitated' persons to have ever lived." This in addition to the numerous fallacies already pointed out.
3)We could just as easily put Christianty in the same light showing you exactly how the majority of your religion is cherry-picked from other sources which pre-date Christianity, the only difference being that we could actually provide evidence for our arguement. Anyone wish to demonstrate?(Im working, sort of) |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 06:40:44 [Permalink]
|
Before we get too far in this discussion let me point out a few things which you may not be aware of,
1)Biological Evolutionly Theory has abolutely nothing to do with the creation of the Universe.
2)ET has nothing to do with the creation of life from non-life. This is a field of chemistry called abiogenesis.
3)The only thing in the Bible which we consider to be refuted by Evolution is the six day creation and the origin of species. The refutation of the supernatural is impossible.
4)Very few Evolutionists* are convinced that there is ZERO possibility God/Gods either starting/creating the Universe or abiogenesis. We willingly admit that we don't know and we can't wait to find out.
5)We feel that if new data is collected and is shown to be accurte data, then it must be included in our science, even if it refutes our long held ideas. Evolution is currently unchallenged by even a single peice of valid data.(to my knowledge) Also valid data regarding speciation cannot be found in the Bible, it only holds a handful verifiable facts such as the existence of Jerusalem 2000years ago.
*Those who hold that Evolutionary Theory is currently without scientific opposition and remains to be falsified. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 06/12/2008 06:43:20 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Darwin’s debt to Christianity
Topic Locked
