I think what you're missing is that most people, myself included, think of Darwin as a man who made a scientific contribution many years ago. It is you who have elevated Darwin to a demigod where every word he spoke or wrote, every thought he had is of cosmic importance. To you he is the Devil made flesh, to me he is merely an historical footnote.
How Jesus became god'... from not being one. Bart Ehrman.
- Thread starter abu afak
- Start date
zaangalewa
Gold Member
- Jan 24, 2015
- 25,429
- 2,712
- 140
Unfortuatelly dominate pseudo-Christians and pseudo-scientists in the public discussions around evolution, so all of this discussions - specially in the English speaking world - are nearly always only nonsense.
S&T? Science and technology? I'm freaky good in science and technology.
R&E? Religion and Ethics? ... Hmm ... I don't remember I said any nonsense in this context. And I said for sure lots of things there, which are important for me and others.
I'm able to explain every single of my thoughts. For everything what I think exist reasons.
I and the people who speak with me. In general I believe what's written down in the catechism of the holy church - with exceptions. And this exceprtions have always roots in traditions, roots in reasoning and/or roots in love. And sometimes I'm just simple not really convinced from something what's written there. But which church has such a good wide transparent base for all believers?
Tell me what he said about and I tell you whether this is right or wrong - based on the current knowledge of science about the age of the world. And if he formulated a new hypothese about the age of the world, then I 'm able to tell you what I think about the plausibility of this hypothese on reason of philosophy.
The much more astonishing thing: When Pope Francis came he was for me a typical Catholic - unbelievable typical - who shared perfectly my belief - although he grew up in another continent continent, another culture and another language. Pope Francis is for sure one of the persons in the world who suffers a lot to be separated by Corona from his spontanous way to live with his brothers and sisters. Nevertheless he fights for the life of everyone in dignity and peace - til the last moment of life on Earth, when god will overtake.
Last edited:
zaangalewa
Gold Member
- Jan 24, 2015
- 25,429
- 2,712
- 140
Anything else to say, impatient dark soul, who lives in fear of psychiatric diseases and rejects modern medical methods?
Last edited:
zaangalewa
Gold Member
- Jan 24, 2015
- 25,429
- 2,712
- 140
Anything else to say, impatient dark soul, who lives in fear of psychiatric diseases and rejects modern medical methods? It would be by the way the very best for all people all around you, if you would throw your weapons into the next scrap press.
Last edited:
ESay
Gold Member
- Mar 14, 2015
- 10,874
- 2,530
- 140
I highly doubt that anyone sits on the right or left hands of God. I hope you dont take anthropomorphic 'features' of God literally.
Yes, the angels are the sons of God. Moreover, even humans can be considered the 'sons' of God. But it is one thing if you refer to Jesus as the son of God in Christian interpretation, and the other thing if you somehow equal him with angels with this title.
In my perception, only God can be described with the word 'perfect'. All creatures are limited in their 'perfection'. Even if we assume that 'divine' Jesus is the first and the most important creation (somehow the way the Arians did), we will have to admit that his 'perfection' is also limited. So, how can I be sure he was a flawless lamb?
james bond
Gold Member
- Oct 17, 2015
- 13,407
- 1,805
- 170
It's not me who's missing Darwin. He's still a giant contributor for the science of atheism. What he did was write a letter of conceit to Alfred Russel Wallace.
"In the first edition of On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, Darwin made a crude estimate of Earth’s age, based on geology, of several hundred million years. This, he suspected, was sufficiently long for the processes of natural selection to take place and produce the wide range of species on Earth.
The great physicist William Thomson, later to become Lord Kelvin, disputed Darwin’s estimate, arguing that Earth was much younger. Thomson had made major contributions to thermodynamics, formulating the second law of thermodynamics and establishing the absolute temperature (Kelvin) scale. At the time, the only known sources of energy that could account for solar radiation were chemical and gravitational. Thomson calculated the age of the Sun for each mechanism and found that gravity gave the largest value, of a few tens of millions of years. Earth could not be older than the Sun, and this age was a factor of ten lower than Darwin’s estimate of the age of Earth. Using thermodynamics, Kelvin also calculated that the temperature of Earth would have been too high even as recently as a million years ago to allow for life.
Thus, based on the best physics knowledge of Darwin’s day, evolution by natural selection was highly suspect. Darwin admitted as much in a letter to Wallace: “Thomson’s views on the recent age of the world have been for some time one of my sorest troubles.” If Thomson’s conclusions had been correct, evolution by natural selection would have been falsified."
Darwinism and the Age of Earth | Skeptical Inquirer
Evolution is often attacked as not being “good science.”
skepticalinquirer.org
I even gave you a hint of Victor Stenger who is one of those atheist scientists who caused trouble for creation scientists when he was alive.
Darwinism would've been done for and Origin of Species cast aside as a flash in the pan. Evolution would've been stopped in its tracks. Certainly, none of this occurred to you because of you trying so hard to contradict a statement I made months ago.
james bond
Gold Member
- Oct 17, 2015
- 13,407
- 1,805
- 170
Haha, so the answer is no, you don't know. It figures. You don't know about your own religion, science, and what's important.
ESay
Gold Member
- Mar 14, 2015
- 10,874
- 2,530
- 140
Why? Because He created imperfect world?
james bond
Gold Member
- Oct 17, 2015
- 13,407
- 1,805
- 170
So, what did Pope Francis say about the age of the Earth?
He didn't say much as he's a liberal and cares more about AGW, protecting the Earth from overuse, and not have civilization just spread haphazardly over it and exploit it. He believes that we should be stewards of the Earth than masters of it. I think he said the Bible teaches this. He rarely uses the Bible in his speeches. This is from what I read in the news; I'm not a follower of Catholicism.
To answer the question, Pope Francis alludes to the age of the Earth and defers to evolution and big bang. He said creation and evolution are both right.
He didn't say much as he's a liberal and cares more about AGW, protecting the Earth from overuse, and not have civilization just spread haphazardly over it and exploit it. He believes that we should be stewards of the Earth than masters of it. I think he said the Bible teaches this. He rarely uses the Bible in his speeches. This is from what I read in the news; I'm not a follower of Catholicism.
To answer the question, Pope Francis alludes to the age of the Earth and defers to evolution and big bang. He said creation and evolution are both right.
Today, the vast majority of scientists, religious authorities, and lay people accept that the earth is far older than 6,000 years, so it is safe to say that Darwin has been proven right that there has been enough time for evolution to have taken place.
It's not me who's missing Darwin. He's still a giant contributor for the science of atheism. What he did was write a letter of conceit to Alfred Russel Wallace.
"In the first edition of On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, Darwin made a crude estimate of Earth’s age, based on geology, of several hundred million years. This, he suspected, was sufficiently long for the processes of natural selection to take place and produce the wide range of species on Earth.
The great physicist William Thomson, later to become Lord Kelvin, disputed Darwin’s estimate, arguing that Earth was much younger. Thomson had made major contributions to thermodynamics, formulating the second law of thermodynamics and establishing the absolute temperature (Kelvin) scale. At the time, the only known sources of energy that could account for solar radiation were chemical and gravitational. Thomson calculated the age of the Sun for each mechanism and found that gravity gave the largest value, of a few tens of millions of years. Earth could not be older than the Sun, and this age was a factor of ten lower than Darwin’s estimate of the age of Earth. Using thermodynamics, Kelvin also calculated that the temperature of Earth would have been too high even as recently as a million years ago to allow for life.
Thus, based on the best physics knowledge of Darwin’s day, evolution by natural selection was highly suspect. Darwin admitted as much in a letter to Wallace: “Thomson’s views on the recent age of the world have been for some time one of my sorest troubles.” If Thomson’s conclusions had been correct, evolution by natural selection would have been falsified."
Darwinism and the Age of Earth | Skeptical Inquirer
Evolution is often attacked as not being “good science.”
I even gave you a hint of Victor Stenger who is one of those atheist scientists who caused trouble for creation scientists when he was alive.
Darwinism would've been done for and Origin of Species cast aside as a flash in the pan. Evolution would've been stopped in its tracks. Certainly, none of this occurred to you because of you trying so hard to contradict a statement I made months ago.
esalla
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #197
Evolution is impossible as even simple dna code could never form randomelyToday, the vast majority of scientists, religious authorities, and lay people accept that the earth is far older than 6,000 years, so it is safe to say that Darwin has been proven right that there has been enough time for evolution to have taken place.
It's not me who's missing Darwin. He's still a giant contributor for the science of atheism. What he did was write a letter of conceit to Alfred Russel Wallace.
"In the first edition of On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, Darwin made a crude estimate of Earth’s age, based on geology, of several hundred million years. This, he suspected, was sufficiently long for the processes of natural selection to take place and produce the wide range of species on Earth.
The great physicist William Thomson, later to become Lord Kelvin, disputed Darwin’s estimate, arguing that Earth was much younger. Thomson had made major contributions to thermodynamics, formulating the second law of thermodynamics and establishing the absolute temperature (Kelvin) scale. At the time, the only known sources of energy that could account for solar radiation were chemical and gravitational. Thomson calculated the age of the Sun for each mechanism and found that gravity gave the largest value, of a few tens of millions of years. Earth could not be older than the Sun, and this age was a factor of ten lower than Darwin’s estimate of the age of Earth. Using thermodynamics, Kelvin also calculated that the temperature of Earth would have been too high even as recently as a million years ago to allow for life.
Thus, based on the best physics knowledge of Darwin’s day, evolution by natural selection was highly suspect. Darwin admitted as much in a letter to Wallace: “Thomson’s views on the recent age of the world have been for some time one of my sorest troubles.” If Thomson’s conclusions had been correct, evolution by natural selection would have been falsified."
Darwinism and the Age of Earth | Skeptical Inquirer
Evolution is often attacked as not being “good science.”
I even gave you a hint of Victor Stenger who is one of those atheist scientists who caused trouble for creation scientists when he was alive.
Darwinism would've been done for and Origin of Species cast aside as a flash in the pan. Evolution would've been stopped in its tracks. Certainly, none of this occurred to you because of you trying so hard to contradict a statement I made months ago.
Evolution is a fact and can stand up to however many straw men you throw at it. Evolution is NOT a random process.Evolution is impossible as even simple dna code could never form randomelyToday, the vast majority of scientists, religious authorities, and lay people accept that the earth is far older than 6,000 years, so it is safe to say that Darwin has been proven right that there has been enough time for evolution to have taken place.
It's not me who's missing Darwin. He's still a giant contributor for the science of atheism. What he did was write a letter of conceit to Alfred Russel Wallace.
"In the first edition of On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, Darwin made a crude estimate of Earth’s age, based on geology, of several hundred million years. This, he suspected, was sufficiently long for the processes of natural selection to take place and produce the wide range of species on Earth.
The great physicist William Thomson, later to become Lord Kelvin, disputed Darwin’s estimate, arguing that Earth was much younger. Thomson had made major contributions to thermodynamics, formulating the second law of thermodynamics and establishing the absolute temperature (Kelvin) scale. At the time, the only known sources of energy that could account for solar radiation were chemical and gravitational. Thomson calculated the age of the Sun for each mechanism and found that gravity gave the largest value, of a few tens of millions of years. Earth could not be older than the Sun, and this age was a factor of ten lower than Darwin’s estimate of the age of Earth. Using thermodynamics, Kelvin also calculated that the temperature of Earth would have been too high even as recently as a million years ago to allow for life.
Thus, based on the best physics knowledge of Darwin’s day, evolution by natural selection was highly suspect. Darwin admitted as much in a letter to Wallace: “Thomson’s views on the recent age of the world have been for some time one of my sorest troubles.” If Thomson’s conclusions had been correct, evolution by natural selection would have been falsified."
Darwinism and the Age of Earth | Skeptical Inquirer
Evolution is often attacked as not being “good science.”
I even gave you a hint of Victor Stenger who is one of those atheist scientists who caused trouble for creation scientists when he was alive.
Darwinism would've been done for and Origin of Species cast aside as a flash in the pan. Evolution would've been stopped in its tracks. Certainly, none of this occurred to you because of you trying so hard to contradict a statement I made months ago.
esalla
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #199
Sorry no proof that dna wrote itself existEvolution is a fact and can stand up to however many straw men you throw at it. Evolution is NOT a random process.Evolution is impossible as even simple dna code could never form randomelyToday, the vast majority of scientists, religious authorities, and lay people accept that the earth is far older than 6,000 years, so it is safe to say that Darwin has been proven right that there has been enough time for evolution to have taken place.
It's not me who's missing Darwin. He's still a giant contributor for the science of atheism. What he did was write a letter of conceit to Alfred Russel Wallace.
"In the first edition of On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, Darwin made a crude estimate of Earth’s age, based on geology, of several hundred million years. This, he suspected, was sufficiently long for the processes of natural selection to take place and produce the wide range of species on Earth.
The great physicist William Thomson, later to become Lord Kelvin, disputed Darwin’s estimate, arguing that Earth was much younger. Thomson had made major contributions to thermodynamics, formulating the second law of thermodynamics and establishing the absolute temperature (Kelvin) scale. At the time, the only known sources of energy that could account for solar radiation were chemical and gravitational. Thomson calculated the age of the Sun for each mechanism and found that gravity gave the largest value, of a few tens of millions of years. Earth could not be older than the Sun, and this age was a factor of ten lower than Darwin’s estimate of the age of Earth. Using thermodynamics, Kelvin also calculated that the temperature of Earth would have been too high even as recently as a million years ago to allow for life.
Thus, based on the best physics knowledge of Darwin’s day, evolution by natural selection was highly suspect. Darwin admitted as much in a letter to Wallace: “Thomson’s views on the recent age of the world have been for some time one of my sorest troubles.” If Thomson’s conclusions had been correct, evolution by natural selection would have been falsified."
Darwinism and the Age of Earth | Skeptical Inquirer
Evolution is often attacked as not being “good science.”
I even gave you a hint of Victor Stenger who is one of those atheist scientists who caused trouble for creation scientists when he was alive.
Darwinism would've been done for and Origin of Species cast aside as a flash in the pan. Evolution would've been stopped in its tracks. Certainly, none of this occurred to you because of you trying so hard to contradict a statement I made months ago.
james bond
Gold Member
- Oct 17, 2015
- 13,407
- 1,805
- 170
It's too late to come along with your consensus theory. You couldn't answer my question and conceded already by, "I don't know and I don't care enough to research it". William Thompson's argument against Darwin turned out to be important because Darwin was about to concede his explanation of ToE could not happen due to not enough time. It also points out how "long time" was of utmost importance to him. The > 6,000 years wasn't that big of a deal and one that Lyell and Hutton left for their readers to come to a decision on. Today, I would say that is the most difficult argument to make since it is based solely on the Bible. What we find physically on Earth has been upset by the global flood and Lyell used geology to attack a 6,000 year old Earth and uniformitarianism.
OTOH, I made a good case on how Darwin could've said I need more than 3 billion years when that article had gone to the internet archives. Several hundred millions years, 3 hundred million years, and his other estimates kept going up as new items, i.e. older items, were discovered. However, creation scientists say these discoveries were all based on assumptions of what Darwin needed as explanations of evolution. Thus, they are all based on circular reasoning in order to back up evolution.
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
One tweet encapsules desperate genocidal Islamic Relublic's zero strategy- Started by Sayaras
- Replies: 0
-
-
1 man dead after being shot during ‘No Kings’ protest in Salt Lake City- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 9
-
Trump curbs immigration enforcement at farms, meatpacking plants, hotels and Restaurants
- Started by 0311
- Replies: 5
-
