100
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 144:
Line 144: + + Line 184:
Line 186: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing (view source)
Revision as of 00:21, May 16, 2007
, 00:21, May 16, 2007→Discussion regarding religion, evil, etc.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
== Headline text ==
Noahs Arc: Fact or Fiction?
:I do attempt not to revert to simply bible bashing etc. What I would like to know is why you feel that the bible must be taken literally? There are a lot of christians and theologists who don't, not that that means you are wrong, simply that there are differences of opinion even amongst christians. I just explained how evolution is falsifiable. If fossils turn up in the wrong rock then evolution is wrong. There have been plenty of attempts to disprove evolution yet it is still regarded as a scientific fact by the majority of biologists.
:I do attempt not to revert to simply bible bashing etc. What I would like to know is why you feel that the bible must be taken literally? There are a lot of christians and theologists who don't, not that that means you are wrong, simply that there are differences of opinion even amongst christians. I just explained how evolution is falsifiable. If fossils turn up in the wrong rock then evolution is wrong. There have been plenty of attempts to disprove evolution yet it is still regarded as a scientific fact by the majority of biologists.
:: I disagree of course with your expectation regarding God featuring in our future understanding, but the main point I want to note is that this is a ''faith position'' of yours.
:: I disagree of course with your expectation regarding God featuring in our future understanding, but the main point I want to note is that this is a ''faith position'' of yours.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:10, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:10, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
I found a couple of problems with that article. Firstly, they have admitted that natural selection occurs, fair enough, they give their reasons for that. But then they say that gene information is simply lost when natural selection favours, say long haired wolves over short haired ones. I only have to refer to the example of the moths (unfortunately I do not know what species of moth) who habit the woods around London. Before the Industrial Revolution these moths were very light brown as they matched the colour of the tree trunks. There was a slight mutation in one of the genes that occasionally threw up black or dark coloured moths, however they did not survive well as they were not camouflaged against the tree trunk. Then when London expanded rapidly and polution became a major issue, the trees around the city became covered in soot. Now it was the black moths who survived to breed and very soon the population of moths were entirely dark coloured. When the city cleaned up (a bit) and the woods returned to their previous colour, the odd moths that were born light coloured were once again the best adapted and so the population has returned to its pre-industrial state. According to that article, the gene information should have been lost and therefore the moths would have been unable to revert back to their original colouring.
The human population is an easy one. The population growth chart would only need static areas if wars and pandemics were left out. The bubonic plague killed almost three quaters of the population of Europe in the 1400's as well as many people in Asia and northern Africa. Wars and fighting over the past 2000 years have resulted in millions, if not billions of deaths as well as outbreaks of disease caused by poor health care up until recently. When such disasters and pandemics and wars are factored into the equation, the graph makes a lot more sense than the 8 people to 7 billion one. My other problem with noahs arc is: why did the human population not become infertile due to the human genes coming only from one families gene pool?
Yes it is counter-intuitive, it is also really weird. If god is so simple, then how can he do all the things you say he does? Creating the world and all the species of animals that inhabit it, creating the whole universe and being able to see and hear everyone on the world at the same time? That is not a simple being at all.
If god exists outside of time and space then how can he influence them? And contradicting himself is not a logical impossibility. What it basically means is that he has no choice in what he does because if he did then he would not be omniscient as he would not be able to see whether or not he interferes or not. So if god is omniscient then he has no choice or free will and therefore is not much of a god as praying to him will have no effect on what he does.
Well the only time I have heard the speed of light used to be faster argument was in that creation on the web book, however they did discount it. I find it hard to believe that serious physicists do actually think that.
I would disagree that it is a faith position, it is simply a prediction. I should not have used the word 'believe' to say how I think the future may pan out however it is not a cast iron faith position.
[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 10:22, 16 May 2007