LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

View Poll Results: You are a...
firm believer 157 28.19%
Deist 18 3.23%
Theist 21 3.77%
Agnostic 119 21.36%
Atheist 242 43.45%
Voters: 557. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Search this Thread
Old 02-06-2009, 07:59 PM   #661
Bruce Hill
HCL Maintainer
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Tupelo, MS
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 6,926

Rep: Reputation: 124Reputation: 124

Darwin’s theory (or strictly speaking scientifically, hypothesis, since its posits have been neither observed nor are testable) was built on at least two faulty presuppositional foundations: 1. the then-recently hypothesized uniformitarian geology (that is, that current slow processes of erosion and deposition or land mass uplift or recession, e.g., can be confidently and endlessly extrapolated into the past, requiring a very great age for the earth and its geologic features, in millions, not thousands of years) instead of the catastrophism that had held sway, and to which the earth’s surface features regularly bear witness; and 2. Thomas Malthus’ theories of population growth, namely, that populations of organisms increase geometrically while food supplies only grow arithmetically, setting the stage for intense competition for survival--“nature red in tooth and claw”--resulting in the “survival of the fittest.” Darwin, in complete ignorance of the genetic transmission of traits, accepted this competition as the driving force behind the improvement of each species, and its eventual transformation by small steps into a new species, or, by branching, into multiple new species. (What this competition for food supplies actually does is not drive the species to higher levels, but acts to preserve it from the degenerative drag of genetic defects, deformities and such. Rather than “the survival of the fittest” at the top, it is more accurately portrayed as “the elimination of the defective / unfit” at the bottom).



Darwin himself admitted that the weakest link in his argument was the absence of transitional forms in the known fossils, but he held out hope that with further discovery, these “gaps” in the record would be filled. Now 150 years and literally millions of examined fossils later, the absence of any transitional forms is as troubling for the theory as ever, indeed, more so, as the hope that theory-supporting transitional forms will be found out there somewhere has faded nearly to despair. Rather, the fossil record testifies repeatedly to stasis rather than transition--both plants (e.g., gingko trees) and animals (e.g., the coelacanth fish) appear in fossils allegedly tens and even hundreds of millions of years old without perceptible change from forms found living today. Occasionally a fossil bird or primate will be found and widely touted in the popular press, or in National Geographic (which has gotten egg on its face more than once in this regard), as “the missing link,” only to be discredited in short order. In truth, there is no one missing link, or ten or a hundred or a thousand, but literally millions of them, since the necessary genetic changes from one species to another would require many thousands of generations and a multitude of transitional forms, and this for every species. But they are simply non-existent. Oops!!



It has been justifiably stated that Darwin’s theory would have never been proposed had the modern knowledge of genetics and inheritance been current in Darwin’s day; they would have simply made his claims untenable. But Gregor Mendel did not begin his experiments until the 1860s, and his results were not published until decades later still; DNA was not discovered until a century after Darwin wrote.



Darwinism was embraced immediately by numerous philosophers and liberal theologians, chiefly, and opposed by many scientists, such as Louis Agassiz of Harvard, Lord Kelvin and Louis Pasteur, on scientific grounds. Leading conservative theologians such as Charles Hodge of Princeton and Charles Spurgeon of London also voiced strong opposition. So, too, did Robert Fitzroy, captain of the H. M. S. Beagle on which Darwin had sailed.



From Darwin’s limited hypothesis which he applied in the realm of biology alone, this surmise of accidental, undirected yet progressive development from lower states to higher ones over time via unbridled competition was extended by others to sociology, the history of religion, economics (laissez-faire capitalism, with its crushing of all competition in the quest for dominance of an industry), chemistry (alleged building up--in stellar “furnaces”--of simple helium into the whole periodic table of elements), and astronomy. Mindless, soulless, purposeless development over time by nothing but pure chance--this soon became philosophically and presuppositionally the universal “solvent” for explaining everything naturally (as opposed to supernaturally). In short, it served as a very convenient way to dispose of God.
 
Old 02-06-2009, 11:32 PM   #662
sparker
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Distribution: OpenBSD 4.6, Debian Lenny
Posts: 64

Rep: Reputation: 16
http://www.talkorigins.org
 
Old 02-07-2009, 12:32 AM   #663
yonnieboy
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2008
Location: sw OR
Distribution: LMDE, PCLOS, Bodhi, Antix
Posts: 100

Rep: Reputation: 15
Did the "universal solvent" dissolve God or did it just flush twice?
 
Old 02-07-2009, 04:32 AM   #664
pinniped
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Location: planet earth
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 1,732

Rep: Reputation: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by yonnieboy View Post
Did the "universal solvent" dissolve God or did it just flush twice?
Whatever happened, it didn't work - god is still here to plague humanity. I'm struggling to keep my lunch down while reading that ignorant post pretending to know something about geology, Darwin, and evolution. I wonder where people get such perverse views of the world - what fictitious books are they reading which purport to be history?
 
Old 02-07-2009, 04:58 AM   #665
shyamkumar1986
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 19

Rep: Reputation: 1
I believe in god - but I am not religious ... What does that make me ?

Last edited by shyamkumar1986; 02-09-2009 at 08:33 AM.
 
Old 02-07-2009, 10:53 AM   #666
Jeebizz
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Slackware 14.1 64-bit with multilib
Posts: 2,074

Rep: Reputation: 187Reputation: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by shyamkumar1986

I believe in god - but I am not religious ... What does that make me ?
Non-practicing believer.
 
Old 02-07-2009, 12:17 PM   #667
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 6,702
Blog Entries: 51

Rep: Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242
Quote:
Originally Posted by shyamkumar1986 View Post
I believe in god - but I am not religious ... What does that make me ?
Which god? There's quite a few to choose from.
 
Old 02-07-2009, 12:20 PM   #668
sycamorex
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: London
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 5,412
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
Which god? There's quite a few to choose from.
http://www.godchecker.com/
 
Old 02-07-2009, 12:25 PM   #669
Jeebizz
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Slackware 14.1 64-bit with multilib
Posts: 2,074

Rep: Reputation: 187Reputation: 187
Well he said God in non-plural terms, so we have to assume the Abrahamic God, though he did not specify himself as a non-practicing Jew, Christian or Muslim. Probably one of the latter two.
 
Old 02-07-2009, 12:31 PM   #670
alan_ri
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2007
Location: Croatia
Distribution: Debian GNU/Linux
Posts: 1,733
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 127Reputation: 127
There is only one God.Thank you.
 
Old 02-07-2009, 12:36 PM   #671
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 6,702
Blog Entries: 51

Rep: Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242
Quote:
Originally Posted by alan_ri View Post
There is only one God.Thank you.
Yeah. Odin.
No. There is only one Goddess: Eris.

Last edited by brianL; 02-07-2009 at 12:37 PM.
 
Old 02-07-2009, 01:03 PM   #672
sycamorex
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: London
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 5,412
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951Reputation: 951
Quote:
Originally Posted by alan_ri View Post
There is only one God.Thank you.
A market monopoly is always a very harmful phenomenon. You need to allow for some form of competition in order to get the best deal!!!

Last edited by sycamorex; 02-07-2009 at 01:14 PM.
 
Old 02-07-2009, 01:10 PM   #673
alan_ri
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2007
Location: Croatia
Distribution: Debian GNU/Linux
Posts: 1,733
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 127Reputation: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
Yeah. Odin.
No. There is only one Goddess: Eris.
No,you should pray to Erinyes.
I'm out of this "discussion" because it ain't goin' in the good direction > no wonder;brianL is talking about God and religion.
 
Old 02-07-2009, 01:23 PM   #674
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 6,702
Blog Entries: 51

Rep: Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242Reputation: 1242
Quote:
Originally Posted by alan_ri View Post
No,you should pray to Erinyes.
I'm out of this "discussion" because it ain't goin' in the good direction > no wonder;brianL is talking about God and religion.
LOL (as they say).
 
Old 02-07-2009, 04:09 PM   #675
jiml8
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,171

Rep: Reputation: 114Reputation: 114
And on the Third Month, the Thread rose again from the dead, and leaving its tomb, stalked again among the board's threads...

Quote:
Darwin’s theory (or strictly speaking scientifically, hypothesis, since its posits have been neither observed nor are testable)
False. Its "posits" are indeed observed throughout nature, and indeed evolution appears to be at work as we speak, from the bacterial level up to the large organism level -- much of the animal kingdom appears to be evolving rapidly in response to humans, the "super predator". Look it up.

Further, its "posits" are not only testable, but have led to predictions that were later shown to be accurate (for instance - one example of many - the tiktallik fish was predicted to exist, its timeframe in history was defined, and the proper skeleton was found in the proper location. Given the special circumstances that surround fossilization, this type of proof will be rare; that vast, vast majority of dead animals do not become fossilized.

Finally, the new and rapidly growing science of genetic engineering has its roots firmly buried in the theory of evolution. Since genetic engineering is working, one must presume that its fundamental tenets must be essentially accurate.

In spite of the ridiculous noise of the religious fanatics the basic fact is that Evolution is one of the best supported of all scientific theories.

And catastrophism - and the evident history of catastrophes, which goes back for billions (not thousands) of years, in no way invalidates evolution.

I don't see why those who wish to discredit darwinism keep talking about how Darwin got this wrong and got that wrong. That is like saying that Newton's work is invalid because he didn't understand gravity and relativity never crossed his horizon. Darwin put forth a novel idea, that apparently answered a lot of questions, and which was supported by a significant body of evidence, and set a lot of research in motion.

That research has not overturned Darwin's idea; it has expanded it and filled in a lot of the holes.

Quote:
From Darwin’s limited hypothesis which he applied in the realm of biology alone, this surmise of accidental, undirected yet progressive development from lower states to higher ones over time via unbridled competition was extended by others to sociology, the history of religion, economics (laissez-faire capitalism, with its crushing of all competition in the quest for dominance of an industry), chemistry (alleged building up--in stellar “furnaces”--of simple helium into the whole periodic table of elements), and astronomy. Mindless, soulless, purposeless development over time by nothing but pure chance--this soon became philosophically and presuppositionally the universal “solvent” for explaining everything naturally (as opposed to supernaturally). In short, it served as a very convenient way to dispose of God.
In short, the mechanism of evolution satisfies all the evidence, without providing the necessity to posit a creator. Those who choose to say that it "disposes of god" are those who are totally blinded by faith and who cannot consider evidence.

Occam's razor applies.
 
  


Reply

Tags
bible, censorship, christ, christian, determinism, education, faith, free will, god, human stupidity, humor, islam, jesus, magic roundabout, mythology, nihilism, peace, pointless, polytheism, quran, religion, virtue, war, zealot


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The touchpad "tapping" questions answers and solutions mega-thread tommytomthms5 Linux - Laptop and Netbook 4 10-30-2007 06:01 PM
What is your religion? jspenguin General 9 04-25-2004 01:28 PM
New Religion (no linux in this thread, sorry) Calum General 9 02-13-2003 02:37 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:57 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration