|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Darwin's Debt to Christianity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Tesla, this has nothing to do with the OP and it's a science topic so I don't know what your point is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
no1nose Junior Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 29 Joined: |
Sitting on the table before me is a coffee cup. I now close my eyes and try to picture the cup. As I try to picture the cup within my mind I notice that I can only hold the image of the cup for a short time and that the image that I imagine is different than what I see when I look at the cup. The image of the cup that I imagine is static in time and more two dimensional than three. I cannot imagine the whole cup but only a view of it. Clearly the cup that exists in my mind is a distorted representation of the cup on the table. The cup in my mind is made up from my observations of the cup on the table. But the cup in my mind is not the same as the cup on the table. The cup on the table exists in real time and space while the cup in my mind exists in an entirely different way that is not a true representation.
I now take a pen and paper and attempt to describe the cup. However, hard I try my description will be of the cup that is in my imagination and not the actual cup itself. This then is the problem with any description of nature based on observations. With the aid on mathematics we can describe some aspects of the cup and make predications based on laws of nature. But in the case of Evolution there are no mathematical measures inherit in its theory. This being the case we are left with only the distorted images in our minds to use as a basis for a written description of the natural world and how it works. This was what Darwin faced when he set out to describe nature with the Theory of Evolution. Besides working with observations based on distorted images he needed a scenario or outline that would make sense of his observations. This is where he turned to Christian beliefs. In Christianity there is the idea that some survive and some become “extinct”. There is also the idea that changing one’s nature is the key to survival. This fit well with his observations and with a few adaptations became the Theory of Evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
no1nose writes: This being the case we are left with only the distorted images in our minds to use as a basis for a written description of the natural world and how it works. So now Darwin used xianty as frame work for his ideas because only xianity could provide that frame work? And that the frame work of xianty is just as distorted as any human perception (unless you give it a free pass). You honesty are proposing that he could not generate a hypothesis without xianity? And thast xianty was his direct inpiration? I bet you love C.S. Lewis, neh? Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
no1nose writes: But in the case of Evolution there are no mathematical measures inherit in its theory. This would be false. It was the highly mathematical work of the population geneticists in the 20's and 30's that resulted in the modern synthesis of Darwinian evolution and genetics, and there are many other parts of evolution that are highly mathematical. For example, Mendel's studies of pea plants mathematically showed precisely what would happen when genes were combined in certain ways, and the science has grown immensely since Mendel's time.
This is where he [Darwin] turned to Christian beliefs. This would be false. Already harboring sincere doubts about Christianity after his ideas concerning evolution took shape, the death of his daughter Annie in 1851 turned him toward agnosticism. In an 1887 letter he said, "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." (see the Wikipedia article on Charles Darwin) --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
no1nose Junior Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 29 Joined: |
"This would be false."
Please show me some math in the Theory of Evoulation. The data you refer to is really independent of the evolution - like a ship can sail the sea under any flag. “Incompleteness” for want of a better word is evident throughout nature. For example in physics there is the uncertainty principle. And in the natural world life is organized in way a way that prevents conscious life from being in direct contact with it ultimate source of life Light flows to the green plants, which use light to make the food that flows to the animals. It would be an advantage for an animal to be able to make food from light the way that plants do. But there are no animals that can make food from light the way plants do. Plants that receive their food from this ultimate source are unconscious and unseeing. There are no plants with eyes that can see or minds that can know. Life, it seems, is shielded from ever coming face to face and knowing where its life comes from. Life is divided in two. The living things that receive their “food” as light are unconscious and unseeing. And the animals that can see and think receive the “light as food” only indirectly from the food that the plants produce for them. “. . there is a Gestalt psych term for what the mind does when it has incomplete information; it is "the closure principle". It means that, when a person is given an incomplete set of data, his mind will fill in the gaps to make a whole picture so that he can interpret it.” Quote:The principle of closure applies when we tend to see complete figures even when part of the information is missing. Our minds react to patterns that are familiar, even though we often receive incomplete information. It is speculated this is a survival instinct, allowing us to complete the form of a predator even with incomplete information. Darwin just filled in the blanks with a twisted form of Christianity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
no1nose writes: Please show me some math in the Theory of Evoulation. I already mentioned Mendel, and the Wikipedia article on Mendelian inheritance describes some of the simple mathematical ratios his research uncovered. You can also check out Deriving genotypic and allelic frequencies where they show some very simple calculations of population genetics. For example, here's a simple calculation of allelic frequency:
f(M) = [(2 x 1787) + 3039]/12,258 = 0.5395 The Wikipedia article on the Hardy-Weinberg principle (an equilibrium theory of population genetics) shows just how complexly mathematical evolution can be, so you might want to check that out, too. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
This was what Darwin faced when he set out to describe nature with the Theory of Evolution. Besides working with observations based on distorted images he needed a scenario or outline that would make sense of his observations. This is where he turned to Christian beliefs. In Christianity there is the idea that some survive and some become “extinct”. There is also the idea that changing one’s nature is the key to survival. This fit well with his observations and with a few adaptations became the Theory of Evolution. This is completely speculative, and indeed, unlikely given Darwin's own words about Christianity. Most of Darwin's theories come directly from observation, however, since the study of heredity was primitive in those days, he did not have the words in which describe his observations as eloquently as we can now. He did form some lofty theories and hypotheses based on his observations, but to say that he used Christianity to expound upon them has no factual basis. He makes no allusions to Christianity, whatsoever, and the supposed one's you give seems to be completely invented in your mind. Think about how easy it is to draw parallels, real or imagined, for just about anything, as Larni has already shared? There are superficial parallels, but I could easily draw the same kind of parallels with Christianity to emergency medical technicians, that resuscitation is actually a metaphor for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I mean, I could on all day inventing parallels from the most vague and superficial things. “I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
no1nose Junior Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 29 Joined: |
"He makes no allusions to Christianity, whatsoever, and the supposed one's you give seems to be completely invented in your mind. Think about how easy it is to draw parallels, real or imagined, for just about anything, as Larni has already shared?"
Darwin was culturally bound in his thinking. He didn’t have the same perspective as we do today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Dude, using quote boxes will help make your post easier to read.
Just press peek (lower right of the dialogue box)
no1nose writes:
quotes are easy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
no1nose Junior Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 29 Joined: |
me writes: looks like you type in the codes. There must be an easier way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
petrophysics1 Inactive Member |
no1nose writes: In Christianity there is the idea that some survive and some become “extinct”. There is also the idea that changing one’s nature is the key to survival. Hmmmmmmm? Ok, I know Jesus Christ is not God. I don't worship false gods. I've lived before and for that reason and many others I am not a Christian. So what's going to happen to me? Well ask any Christian... I am going to be tortured for ALL ETERNITY. Am I going to cease to exist as a sentient being? No! See according to Christianity I will live forever regardless of accepting Jesus Christ, or changing or anything else. That's very different than the ToE. I don't see any similarities at all. I wonder, is there a name for the mental illness which would cause someone to worship a being who would torment people FOREVER?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
no1nose Junior Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 29 Joined: |
petrophysics writes: Ok, I know Jesus Christ is not God. I don't worship false gods. I've lived before and for that reason and many others I am not a Christian. So what's going to happen to me? Well ask any Christian... I am going to be tortured for ALL ETERNITY. Am I going to cease to exist as a sentient being? No! See according to Christianity I will live forever regardless of accepting Jesus Christ, or changing or anything else. That's very different than the ToE. I don't see any similarities at all. I wonder, is there a name for the mental illness which would cause someone to worship a being who would torment people FOREVER? Interesting post but weather people go to hell or not is another topic. I was just trying to show where Darwin got some of his ideas from. How's life in Wyoming? We lived there for few years - it was great for getting outdoors - but sometimes the wind would blow for months.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
no1nose Junior Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 29 Joined: |
Besides being a math free zone the Theory of Evolution is also an “observer” free.
Relativity is referenced to an “observer”. Changes in time and mass and velocity are “observed” by an observer. In quantum physics the state of a system remains indeterminate until it is “observed”. In atomic systems if the observer looks for a wave a wave is observed, if a particle is “looked” for then a particle and not a wave is observed. Strange but true as they say. However the Theory of Evolution has no provision for the role of an observer even though the changes that take place are at the atomic level where quantum realities should dominate. When one surveys the natural world and the changes that do occur one must notice the trend toward beauty. If changes in the natural world were completely random then the world around us would have all the beauty of a junk yard. Beauty in the natural world implies that these changes are driven by an observer. The lack of a role for an observer is yet one more piece of evidence against the Theory of Evolution as a valid description of the natural world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
no1nose writes: When one surveys the natural world and the changes that do occur one must notice the trend toward beauty. No one must not: is a naked mole rat beauty? Is a toad beauty?
no1nose writes: If changes in the natural world were completely random then the world around us would have all the beauty of a junk yard. It's a good job evolution is not random then.
no1nose writes: Beauty in the natural world implies that these changes are driven by an observer. No it does not. It implies that we have evolved a sufficiently complex sensory system to lable something as beautiful.
no1noses writes: The lack of a role for an observer is yet one more piece of evidence against the Theory of Evolution as a valid description of the natural world. The lack of an observer role indicates that evolution operates without intelligence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
no1nose Junior Member (Idle past 5778 days) Posts: 29 Joined: |
It's a good job evolution is not random then. When did it stop being a chance process?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024