Cruentus
Grandmaster
Very Ironic.
Evolution Vs Creationism
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
Very Ironic.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Archbishop Ussher--nineteenth century--is mot typically associated with the calculation of the age of the earth by adding up the years of the prophets and patriarchs in Genesis.
I just love crackpottery like that, especially when people start getting the Great Pyramid into it so that they can calculate the date of the end of the world. (Today, around...oh...sixteen minutes from now...) And I just love the "catastrophist" bizarre takes on science, to say nothing of their idea that God only made things LOOK old to test us...
I just love crackpottery like that, especially when people start getting the Great Pyramid into it so that they can calculate the date of the end of the world. (Today, around...oh...sixteen minutes from now...) And I just love the "catastrophist" bizarre takes on science, to say nothing of their idea that God only made things LOOK old to test us...
qizmoduis
Purple Belt
Well, you should really read the article I linked. I wouldn't call him a crackpot. More a product of his time. I don't think it's really fair to paint him with a modern brush, despite what it looks like to us today.
He published his estimate back in the early 1600s, btw.
This paragraph:
James Ussher (1581-1656), an Irish theologian and scholar, at one time had possibly the largest collection of books in Western Europe. A tireless collector, he eventually donated the collection to Trinity College, Dublin, which his uncle James Ussher helped found. During his lifetime he was widely known as a defender of learning, of the value of books secular and sacred, and a proponent of maintaining an independent identity for Irish Protestant faith. He was appointed Archbishop of Armagh in 1625.
from
http://ifaq.wap.org/science/ussher.html
suggests that he was Anglican, rather than Romanc Catholic.
[edit] I just wanted to add that "crackpot" would be an excellent description for modern day folks who give credence to Ussher's estimate.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Thanks for the date correction: dopey me.
However, even in those times crackpottery is not altogther incorrect. By then, the Greeks and Romans had been arguing evolution for quite some time...as had others.
However, you are again right in at least one way: "crackpot," imples someone with a whacko theory completely out of touch with common sense, as "common sense," is construed at the time.
However, even in those times crackpottery is not altogther incorrect. By then, the Greeks and Romans had been arguing evolution for quite some time...as had others.
However, you are again right in at least one way: "crackpot," imples someone with a whacko theory completely out of touch with common sense, as "common sense," is construed at the time.
he was Church of Ireland... but even Anglican accepts evolution.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
I agree, and I was just about to say basically the same thing. Also, even though greeks and Romans may have had some theories on evolution, they were no more backed by modern scientific evidence then Ussher's theory, at least not as I see it.
I could agree with you there!
My problem with the creationist stuff is it is more backed by legend (Genesis) rather then hard science. If hard science could estimate that earth was only thousands of years old, without using the bible to justify the claim, then I might consider the theories credible. I haven't seen a creationist theory backed by hard science; I only see creationist theories as being antagonistic towards evolutionists. The thing is, ANY theory can be effectively "shot down," even theories backed by hard science; its finding that alternative solution (with hard evidence to back it) that counts, not just shooting down the theory. Being a skeptic is easy, being a problem solver is not.
btw... according to my Catholic/Christian religious beliefs, Genesis is a legendary, mythical story, that was told in tribes around a campfire for 1000's of years before actually written down. It's "true" in a mythical sense, but not "literal." We could compare this to Homers Epics in that they have found some archeological evidence to support that some of the things in the epic were true, but obviously the "mytholigy" part was not literally true, but a way to explain what was going on around them.
Anyways, when you don't take certain parts of the bible literally, and take them in the context in which they were written like we're supposed too, you are allowed to be much more logical when modern science finds things out (like the world is more then 7 thousand years old, and the solar system doesn't revolve around the earth).
Heh.
But I would add this...every scientist would love to make his or her mark the way Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Godel, Einstein, and others did: By turning our view of the world on its head with a revolutionary new paradigm that changes how we see things. If I could support a radical new theory like creation science, I'd publish it right now--thereby replacing Darwin's Theory of Evolution with Arnisador's Theory of Creationism! Every scientist would like to overturn things, and that's what is the biggest hole in their theory, to me--the belief that scientists would suppress a radical theory rather than use it to enhance their own fame!
Yup--science is science. Whether science is right or wrong, if one intends to learne science, that's what one should learn--not religion.
Just found this thread,
I have an interesting link on a debate between this same topic. Actually has some interesting points. Found it on google, looks like a debate with animal experts on Evolution vs Creation. The link is below;
http://p083.ezboard.com/fsharks77551frm2.showMessage?topicID=195.topic
As for my stance on this issue, I am pretty much agnostic, but not all the way. Anyone that says there is no proof for the theory for creation is very wrong. But there is not enough proof to convert me 100% into a christian, jew, or muslim. Cosmic evolution doesn't have enough proof for me either.
I have an interesting link on a debate between this same topic. Actually has some interesting points. Found it on google, looks like a debate with animal experts on Evolution vs Creation. The link is below;
http://p083.ezboard.com/fsharks77551frm2.showMessage?topicID=195.topic
As for my stance on this issue, I am pretty much agnostic, but not all the way. Anyone that says there is no proof for the theory for creation is very wrong. But there is not enough proof to convert me 100% into a christian, jew, or muslim. Cosmic evolution doesn't have enough proof for me either.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
No, we're really not. The reasons have already been discussed, but they boil down to this: "proof," in the sense we're discussing, must be based on some material reality--some observable fact that can be produced again and again by very different people who run the experiment or take the look at Nature. It isn't, in other words, a matter of faith or belief or opinion, but of theory tested against reality.
Evolutionary theory rests on a very extensive series of such facts, all of which point to/fit into the same idea. Among others, those facts include the age of the earth, which is utterly incompatible with every creationist timeline I've ever heard of.
Creationism does not, and will not until somebody produces, say, the Garden of Eden, or Adam and Eve's bones, or something similar. More to the point, fundamentalist Protestant beliefs--and primarily, that's what we're really talking about, not, "religion," and not even, "Christian"-- simply do not rest upon material facts. Their sources of legitimation are very different, and they are simply not testable.
This does not mean there's no God, or that the Christians Are Wrong, or even that Creationism is wrong. It means that these are not scientific questions, and that they cannot have scientific proof.
Evolutionary theory rests on a very extensive series of such facts, all of which point to/fit into the same idea. Among others, those facts include the age of the earth, which is utterly incompatible with every creationist timeline I've ever heard of.
Creationism does not, and will not until somebody produces, say, the Garden of Eden, or Adam and Eve's bones, or something similar. More to the point, fundamentalist Protestant beliefs--and primarily, that's what we're really talking about, not, "religion," and not even, "Christian"-- simply do not rest upon material facts. Their sources of legitimation are very different, and they are simply not testable.
This does not mean there's no God, or that the Christians Are Wrong, or even that Creationism is wrong. It means that these are not scientific questions, and that they cannot have scientific proof.
Flatlander
Grandmaster
If anyone has read Gods of the New Millenium by Alan Alford, they'll know where I stand on this.
In this book, Alford puts forth a scientific theory which is a revolutionary twist on creationism. The theory encompasses the mythology of the Sumerian people, describes the origins of the pyramids, stonehenge, Machu Pichu, reconciles the timeline of the Sumerian Kings List with the historical timeline of the Old Testament, and reconciles similarities between the mythologies and beliefs of various ancient civilizations around the globe, as well as a multitude of other previously irreconcilable differences between various theories and beliefs about our history. Fascinating, a good read, and an interesting point of view.
In the book, Alford puts forth the idea that we were genetically engineered by an alien race to be their working class on Earth. Sounds far out, but the book is a good argument, and very well researched.
In this book, Alford puts forth a scientific theory which is a revolutionary twist on creationism. The theory encompasses the mythology of the Sumerian people, describes the origins of the pyramids, stonehenge, Machu Pichu, reconciles the timeline of the Sumerian Kings List with the historical timeline of the Old Testament, and reconciles similarities between the mythologies and beliefs of various ancient civilizations around the globe, as well as a multitude of other previously irreconcilable differences between various theories and beliefs about our history. Fascinating, a good read, and an interesting point of view.
In the book, Alford puts forth the idea that we were genetically engineered by an alien race to be their working class on Earth. Sounds far out, but the book is a good argument, and very well researched.
RandomPhantom700
Master of Arts
Far out? I'd say it sounds just plain looney. Tell me, what's his basic justification for claiming that all these ancient sites are somehow connected to an alien super-race? It sounds like he's just trying to create some secular God, if that paradoxical phrase can be pardoned for a moment.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
I am curious how one goes about conducting 'research' on an 'alien race'. Oh, well.flatlander said:
Thanks for contributing. Mike
Flatlander
Grandmaster
As I said, it sounds pretty far out. If you're at all interested in questioning the theory, you should read it. Its altogether way to detailed to get into here without just quoting the book endlessly, which would only serve to derail the thread. Creative idea, though.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
An argument swiped from Charles Fort and "Chariots of the Gods," coupled with "science," derived from movies and "Star Trek: TNG," episodes, is hardly the same as what Charles Darwin did.
heretic888
Senior Master
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,723
- Reaction score
- 60
Agreed.
Pure speculation, divorced of any evidential proofs (whether material or otherwise), is not the basis for sound science --- or else every other conspiracy nutjob on the planet would have a claim to fame.
Laterz.
Pure speculation, divorced of any evidential proofs (whether material or otherwise), is not the basis for sound science --- or else every other conspiracy nutjob on the planet would have a claim to fame.
Laterz.
Flatlander
Grandmaster
I'm going to pull out of this thread now, as it seems to me the general intent seems to be attack before investigate. I apologize for bringing a different perspective to a 2 sided debate. I guess when competition between two major positions heats up, opposing factions become so entrenched in trying to refute each other, there's just not enough time to listen to different possibilities.rmcrobertson said:
Sorry for butting in. Enjoy your banter.
Dan.
Thank you, Robert.
As a scientist and a religious person, it makes me slightly mental (just slightly?) when I am asked (usually on a plane by a neighbor who sees the science book I'm reading), "So you believe in Evolution?"
You have a belief system - based on faith. And you have science, which is a system that is supposed to be driven by logic and empirical evidence. The two are not mutally exclusive. People get caught up in the fact that Darwin's theory of evolution does not presuppose a God in the process - and therefore think it's a refutation of religion. Which it is not.
I don't believe in evolution, I think it is a pretty good theory. I believe in my religious beliefs.
I like Stephen Jay Gould's Rocks of Ages for a quick tour through the science/religion difference and co-existence, and the importance of both in human lives - although Gould was an agnostic.
I apologize in advance if I'm posting something already stated - I skipped ahead a bit in the thread.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
OK, Dan, so I checked the Offical Alan Alford Website. He's a nutbar.
Here is a sample:
In the closing years of the 20th century and the opening years of the 21st, I happened, by a fruitful combination of curiosity, open-mindedness, instinct, perseverance, and luck, to gain knowledge of a great secret the so-called Secret of secrets that was cherished by the sages of old as the key to the Mystery of Existence, and transmitted through time by means of myth, allegory, cryptic writing, art, architecture, symbol, and oral initiatory traditions, for the benefit of those few who still had eyes to see and ears to hear.
Armed with this sacred knowledge, I have invested my time carefully driving back the fog of confusion which swirls around the man-made mysteries of our planet, while simultaneously contemplating the Original Mystery by testing the Idea of the ancient sages against my own observations of life, death, and human existence. The former quest, for man-made truth, is one that I share openly in my books, where I offer each individual reader the Knowledge through which he, or she, can become Homo religiosus sapiens the man who is wise in his religion. The latter quest, for Original Truth, remains personal and private, as it ought to be; but in my fourth book I drop some hints for those who would follow my path of enlightenment, which is best described as esoteric Platonism."
Elsewhere on this site, he discusses Atlantis, the Great Pyramids, The Chariots of the Gods (looks like I had 'im pegged), Planet X, and something called, "the aquatic ape," theory of human evolution.
He's a nutter in the grand and charming English tradition of nutters, without which the world would be a poorer place. However, I recommend reading Nevil Shute's "No Highway In The Sky," or seeing the movie (it's got Jimmy Stewart!) for an even more charming nutter, Mr. Honey.
However, there's a difference. Mr. Honey is a brilliant mathemetician, with some very wacko theories about the Great Pyramid. Mr. Alford is not a brilliant mathemetician, or a brilliant scientist of any kind.
The real question, though, is the one asked since Spinoza: why do people believe weird things?
One reason--I've no idea if this is true in Mr. Alford's case, but it can be seen pretty clearly in the "theories," of Scientology--is racism. Like the Saucerians, often enough these, 'theories," sooner or laater start circulating around the idea that SOME of the human race is pure and good, and some is mongrelized and debased--any cases about which skin color attaches to which?
Similarly, I suspect that many people reject evolution because evolution says that a) we are one species, b) that species originated in Africa--and welllll, you know what that means. (Interestingly, certain parts of the Nation of islam also reject evolution for very similar reasons of fantasized racial supremacy.)
Another reason, however, is that educators like myself have done a piss-poor (and in some cases, cowardly) job of representing what science is, to say nothing of evolutionary theory.
Science is not just a bag of opinions. No, not everybody is equally qualified to decide scientific matters.
You are always entitled to your own opinion, no matter how bizarre, I'm glad to say. This does not mean it's true, and don't get freedom of speech confused with the correct evaluation of reality.
Science is democratic in a different and more-radical sense. Science says that anyone, anyone at all, is free to learn, to research, to observe and experiment, to throw their results into the ring.
Here is a sample:
In the closing years of the 20th century and the opening years of the 21st, I happened, by a fruitful combination of curiosity, open-mindedness, instinct, perseverance, and luck, to gain knowledge of a great secret the so-called Secret of secrets that was cherished by the sages of old as the key to the Mystery of Existence, and transmitted through time by means of myth, allegory, cryptic writing, art, architecture, symbol, and oral initiatory traditions, for the benefit of those few who still had eyes to see and ears to hear.
Armed with this sacred knowledge, I have invested my time carefully driving back the fog of confusion which swirls around the man-made mysteries of our planet, while simultaneously contemplating the Original Mystery by testing the Idea of the ancient sages against my own observations of life, death, and human existence. The former quest, for man-made truth, is one that I share openly in my books, where I offer each individual reader the Knowledge through which he, or she, can become Homo religiosus sapiens the man who is wise in his religion. The latter quest, for Original Truth, remains personal and private, as it ought to be; but in my fourth book I drop some hints for those who would follow my path of enlightenment, which is best described as esoteric Platonism."
Elsewhere on this site, he discusses Atlantis, the Great Pyramids, The Chariots of the Gods (looks like I had 'im pegged), Planet X, and something called, "the aquatic ape," theory of human evolution.
He's a nutter in the grand and charming English tradition of nutters, without which the world would be a poorer place. However, I recommend reading Nevil Shute's "No Highway In The Sky," or seeing the movie (it's got Jimmy Stewart!) for an even more charming nutter, Mr. Honey.
However, there's a difference. Mr. Honey is a brilliant mathemetician, with some very wacko theories about the Great Pyramid. Mr. Alford is not a brilliant mathemetician, or a brilliant scientist of any kind.
The real question, though, is the one asked since Spinoza: why do people believe weird things?
One reason--I've no idea if this is true in Mr. Alford's case, but it can be seen pretty clearly in the "theories," of Scientology--is racism. Like the Saucerians, often enough these, 'theories," sooner or laater start circulating around the idea that SOME of the human race is pure and good, and some is mongrelized and debased--any cases about which skin color attaches to which?
Similarly, I suspect that many people reject evolution because evolution says that a) we are one species, b) that species originated in Africa--and welllll, you know what that means. (Interestingly, certain parts of the Nation of islam also reject evolution for very similar reasons of fantasized racial supremacy.)
Another reason, however, is that educators like myself have done a piss-poor (and in some cases, cowardly) job of representing what science is, to say nothing of evolutionary theory.
Science is not just a bag of opinions. No, not everybody is equally qualified to decide scientific matters.
You are always entitled to your own opinion, no matter how bizarre, I'm glad to say. This does not mean it's true, and don't get freedom of speech confused with the correct evaluation of reality.
Science is democratic in a different and more-radical sense. Science says that anyone, anyone at all, is free to learn, to research, to observe and experiment, to throw their results into the ring.
I believe that is the idea that, along the path of human evolution, at one point our chimp-like ancestors were partially aquatic - which may explain (so the idea goes, I think) our loss of body hair, which would create a lot of drag in the water.
I haven't read anything in particular about this, I just remember a professor of mine talking about it as an aside in class.
Flatlander
Grandmaster
OK, fair enough, I decided to check the website, as the idea that there might be one hadn't occurred to me. Turns out Alford has retracted his original theory, and replaced it with a different one, and of course, written some more books.rmcrobertson said:
I guess everyone has their own way of paying the bills.
The truth is, nobody that I know has ever read his work, and therefore had never 'discussed' the validity of the proposition with anybody before. However, I suppose that rather than become defensive, it would be wiser of me to thank you for giving me cause to pause and check. This exercise illustrates to me the way a bias can affect one's ability to put on one's critical thinking hat.
Having said my piece, then, know that I'll continue reading the various debates in here, this one included, waiting for the opportunity to put the hat on and offer something intelligent. I don't have an issue with being called to task on my position. But as Alford has retracted his own theory, there's not alot left for me to say about that.
(let's pretend this never happenned)
Dan.
