Soggy:
I feel the same way when I see evolution propagated as fact.
I'm not going to change your mind by questioning your presuppositions, but I might help another person engage in critical thinking.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter Lost_At_Sea
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
- Status
I feel the same way when I see evolution propagated as fact.
I'm not going to change your mind by questioning your presuppositions, but I might help another person engage in critical thinking.
H2Andy
Contributor
sandjeep:
faith based?
it don't take faith to know what happened at Auschwitz is wrong, and to say, "that should never happen again."
it don't take faith to know what happened in that Amish school today is wrong, and to say, "that shouldn't happen again"
or are you so morally blind that it takes a God to tell you those things are wrong?
Soggy
Contributor
DiverBry:
Evolutionary theory has, for over 100 years, fit, to the bill, everything we observe in the animal kingdom today. You seem to misunderstand the concept of "theory" in scientific terms. As long as it is possible for a theory to be proven incorrect, it remains a theory. Gravity is a theory, too, but I doubt you'll find anyone who disputes that if you jump out of an airplane, you'll go splat. Heck, ever heard of the Pythagorean theorem? Are you going to dispute that because it is a "theory"? Good luck finding triangles that violate that "theory."
shakeybrainsurgeon
Contributor
Christ rejects the Mosaic code "an eye for an eye"
Christ rejects the Jewish "Law", particularly the dietary restrictions (it is more important what comes out of the mouth than what goes in)
I don't think we can assume anything about the life of Christ that isn't in the gospels and even that is suspect, since the gospels were written years, possibly many decades after his death.
I disagree that any of the parables are that clear and in many cases, they make no sense. From the prodigal son, we learn that you are better off squandering your fortune and life, and then repenting, than you would be if you lead a good life from the beginning. The story of the talents teaches us that we are better off in high risk adventures with other people's money, and will be punished for playing it safe with the property of others. The date tree is made to whither because it doesn't bear dates in season. In terms of wisdom, Chinese philosophy makes much more sense.
The gospels are full of mythical propaganda... the evangelists who believed Christ was the jewish messiah conveniently have Jesus, a Nazarene, born in Bethlehem because the messiah had to be to the house of David. Those who believed he was the Son of God, like John, don't mention his birth at all, since his origins on earth were of no consequence. Furthermore, we are to believe that an immense hubbub arose at the time of Christ birth, the choir of angels, the star, the Magi... yet, a mere thirty years later, not one person seems to recall this? Oh yeah, I remember you, the star and all...in fact, Herod killed my brother looking for you! Somehow, the slaughter of the innocents was quickly forgotten.
Despite his alleged notoriety, Christ is barely mentioned in Roman versions of events, likely because such figures arose frequently at the time and were often eliminated for the same reasons Christ was. Once again, if one looks objectively at what we know, the Romans concern that Christ was seeking political power is not unwarranted. The rhetoric is very similar to revolutionary rhethoric of the 20th century (the meek shall inherit the earth, wealth isn't important). despite being Saviour for all men, Christ clearly has disdain for Roman authority and his cryptic answers to Pilate are more sarcastic than humorous. mainstream Jews had no use for an aramaic Che Guevera either, given a) the Romans allowed them to practice their religion and were generally benign occupiers, and b) the Romans dealt with disruption of their empire severely.
Christ's teachings are often belligerent and, in the temple, he even resorts to violence. He deliberately antagonizes those he disagrees with, rather than instruct them.
HOWEVER, these flaws reflect the human portrayal of an epic figure. If we look at the big picture, Christianity as a philosophy that has evolved over the centuries has been the most beneficial to human progress and happiness. Given the oppressive nature of some other paradigms, it will be apparent that Christ indeed did save humankind, but in a way far more complex and interesting than conventional Biblical mythologies suggest.
Christ rejects the Jewish "Law", particularly the dietary restrictions (it is more important what comes out of the mouth than what goes in)
I don't think we can assume anything about the life of Christ that isn't in the gospels and even that is suspect, since the gospels were written years, possibly many decades after his death.
I disagree that any of the parables are that clear and in many cases, they make no sense. From the prodigal son, we learn that you are better off squandering your fortune and life, and then repenting, than you would be if you lead a good life from the beginning. The story of the talents teaches us that we are better off in high risk adventures with other people's money, and will be punished for playing it safe with the property of others. The date tree is made to whither because it doesn't bear dates in season. In terms of wisdom, Chinese philosophy makes much more sense.
The gospels are full of mythical propaganda... the evangelists who believed Christ was the jewish messiah conveniently have Jesus, a Nazarene, born in Bethlehem because the messiah had to be to the house of David. Those who believed he was the Son of God, like John, don't mention his birth at all, since his origins on earth were of no consequence. Furthermore, we are to believe that an immense hubbub arose at the time of Christ birth, the choir of angels, the star, the Magi... yet, a mere thirty years later, not one person seems to recall this? Oh yeah, I remember you, the star and all...in fact, Herod killed my brother looking for you! Somehow, the slaughter of the innocents was quickly forgotten.
Despite his alleged notoriety, Christ is barely mentioned in Roman versions of events, likely because such figures arose frequently at the time and were often eliminated for the same reasons Christ was. Once again, if one looks objectively at what we know, the Romans concern that Christ was seeking political power is not unwarranted. The rhetoric is very similar to revolutionary rhethoric of the 20th century (the meek shall inherit the earth, wealth isn't important). despite being Saviour for all men, Christ clearly has disdain for Roman authority and his cryptic answers to Pilate are more sarcastic than humorous. mainstream Jews had no use for an aramaic Che Guevera either, given a) the Romans allowed them to practice their religion and were generally benign occupiers, and b) the Romans dealt with disruption of their empire severely.
Christ's teachings are often belligerent and, in the temple, he even resorts to violence. He deliberately antagonizes those he disagrees with, rather than instruct them.
HOWEVER, these flaws reflect the human portrayal of an epic figure. If we look at the big picture, Christianity as a philosophy that has evolved over the centuries has been the most beneficial to human progress and happiness. Given the oppressive nature of some other paradigms, it will be apparent that Christ indeed did save humankind, but in a way far more complex and interesting than conventional Biblical mythologies suggest.
sandjeep
Contributor
Why does it make you angry?
From your your wiki source,,,
A article entitled "Australopithecus vs. the Computer" in the University of Chicago Magazine (Winter 1974, p. Cool by Dr. Charles F. Oxnard, professor in the Departments of Anatomy and Anthropology, reports the results of his computerized multivariate analysis of Australopithecus in comparison with similar analyses of Man and modern apes (this article is adapted from his book, Uniqueness and Diversity in Human Evolution: Morphometric Studies of Australopithecines, published in 1975 by the University of Chicago Press). According to Dr. Oxnard, his analyses show that Australopithecus was not intermediate between Man and the apes but was uniquely different. Australopithecus was, in fact, as different from both Man and the apes as either is from the other. This should be sufficient to banish Australopithecus as a candidate for Man's alleged ape-like ancestor, and thus to practically clear the field of supposed transitional forms between Man and the apes.
Soggy
Contributor
It annoys me because it is the propagation of misinformation.
Ok, so there is some dispute in the scientific community over one particular fossil. How does that disprove evolution exactly? Because we don't have 100% agreement regarding one particular transitional fossil for one species?
Not being an evolutionary scientist, I can't credit or discredit Dr. Oxnard's findings, which were apparently based on the results of a computer program from 1974.
Ok, so there is some dispute in the scientific community over one particular fossil. How does that disprove evolution exactly? Because we don't have 100% agreement regarding one particular transitional fossil for one species?
Not being an evolutionary scientist, I can't credit or discredit Dr. Oxnard's findings, which were apparently based on the results of a computer program from 1974.
sandjeep:
H2Andy
Contributor
sandjeep:
wow... that's state of the art scholarship
(fyi, there have been significant new discoveries regarding Lucy, the last one just a few weeks back, when a child belonging to the same "species" was discovered)
and yes, overwhelming scientific consensus is that Lucy and her kind represent a transition between more ape-like creatures and us.
also, Lucy was found on November, 1974. fragging fast work on that guy's part to be able to come up with his analysis less than a year later. doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it?
didn't they think aerosols weren't a problem back in 1974?
sandjeep
Contributor
Sometimes I landed on my 4th point of contact (ok a lot), but never splat.
Soggy:
It shows there is dispute regarding what is being observed. It is for this reason it remains classified as the theory of evolution.
Other theories are not contested to this degree... however, even aspects of gravity are contested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation#Problems_with_Newton.27s_theory
Hence, it is still a theory.
H2Andy
Contributor
sandjeep:
rookie
- Status
Similar threads
