CPCWiki forum

Warning, some people might find this post inappropriate.  ;)

I've just read George Coyne's book... and although the vatican hasn't released anything official, why are the Catholic church suddenly big on Science. Are the hard to swallow facts of Science now an acceptable discussion around the table for our fellow Christians?

I've recently read that many Priests are now admitting along with the pope... that evolution is now considered the best explanation for the creation of the Universe and the Earth. Have the Catholic church gone mad! Or maybe realised that in order to be considered serious in the modern world, they now need a foothold into the ever popular, and truth of Science? A few Priests have admitted that many of them accepted Evolution over fifty years ago! And have openly rubbished the biblical thoughts on creationism and the God gap filler of intelligent design.

Call me a cynic  ;D  but is this an incognito style approach for continued credibility... (boy do they need it) so that the church and its feelings will still be given thought in the everyday running of an increasingly difficult world, i.e. especially around war and ethical Space exploration? What's the agenda???

Church in the west is becoming more and more irrelevant... which is a pity (and this comes from a convinced atheist).

That said, this is not inappropriate, just plain off-topic :)

Quote from: ukmarkh on 16:36, 30 October 10
Warning, some people might find this post inappropriate.  ;)

I've just read George Coyne's book... and although the vatican hasn't released anything official, why are the Catholic church suddenly big on Science. Are the hard to swallow facts of Science now an acceptable discussion around the table for our fellow Christians?

I've recently read that many Priests are now admitting along with the pope... that evolution is now considered the best explanation for the creation of the Universe and the Earth. Have the Catholic church gone mad! Or maybe realised that in order to be considered serious in the modern world, they now need a foothold into the ever popular, and truth of Science? A few Priests have admitted that many of them accepted Evolution over fifty years ago! And have openly rubbished the biblical thoughts on creationism and the God gap filler of intelligent design.

Call me a cynic  ;D  but is this an incognito style approach for continued credibility... (boy do they need it) so that the church and its feelings will still be given thought in the everyday running of an increasingly difficult world, i.e. especially around war and ethical Space exploration? What's the agenda???

In Germany we say "Schuster bleib bei deinen Leisten", which means you should stick with your job and not try to talk about something you don't know.
As we can see, it prooves to be a good sentence, since the church now (again) wants to talk about research topics. The church's job is to care about people, but they do anything else more than what they shall do.

The funny thing is though that the church accepts now the theroy of evolution, which _IS_ in its majority bullshit. In 50 years it will be written in any school book. Then the church will have to change its oppinion again(!). So who can believe them any longer?


You want to know the truth about religion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw)

Darwin's theory of evolution is certainly one which was criticised in it's day for the theories and views it expressed, though Darwin was going to extraordinary lengths in his research and from what I've heard the Galapagos Islands is the best place to study the theories, mainly due to it's isolation and number of species unique only to that group of Islands!  ;D

I've got relatives though who have religious backgrounds and have talked to their friends, needless to say we all had different backgrounds, though still got along!  ;D

Quote from: CP/M User on 23:48, 30 October 10
Darwin's theory of evolution is certainly one which was criticised in it's day for the theories and views it expressed, though Darwin was going to extraordinary lengths in his research and from what I've heard the Galapagos Islands is the best place to study the theories, mainly due to it's isolation and number of species unique only to that group of Islands!  ;D

I've got relatives though who have religious backgrounds and have talked to their friends, needless to say we all had different backgrounds, though still got along!  ;D

Religion is a means of suppression. And it covers some truth.

In a time religion was questioned more and more a "official" kind of research was established, to cover the same truth. Darwins theory is part of this second "cover the truth" campaign.

Fact is that Darwin is wrong in most points. And fact is also that the people today don't know it, but this will change soon. On the other hand researches already know what's going on, just take a look at the DNA sequence of some species, it's all freely accessible in the net.

Quote from: TFM/FS on 00:57, 31 October 10Fact is that Darwin is wrong in most points. And fact is also that the people today don't know it, but this will change soon. On the other hand researches already know what's going on, just take a look at the DNA sequence of some species, it's all freely accessible in the net.

Interesting , but about DNA knowledge , where it could be incompatible with evolution theory ? Where Darwin was so wrong ?
Anyway , science has not to be dogmatic , therories can be contested as long God or some other divinity is not involved.

Studying the evolutionary cycle would have to be one of the hardest things to accomplish, one of our lifetimes isn't perhaps long enough to archieve this either. It's the investigation on why things change to adapt to conditions suitable!  ;D 

The Natural Environment is interesting cause it presents different results primarily based on Weather patterns, and like a computer program when variables change, different outcomes come into effect!  ;D

So what is so wrong about the evolution theory?

And accusing Darwin of being wrong is like accusing ancient Sumerians of Greeks that they got the circumference of the earth or the distance to the sun wrong by a few hundreds KMs or so...

Oh no !
Let me quiet , i have nothing to do with all this stuff.
Maybe one or two miracles (space invader , pacman and others) but nothing else  :angel:

God is love.
He makes the rain that makes the flowers.

Quote from: God on 16:29, 31 October 10
Oh no !
Let me quiet , i have nothing to do with all this stuff.
Maybe one or two miracles (space invader , pacman and others) but nothing else  :angel:

And then, what's that ZX then? A plague? Hmmmm?

Let's just agree to disagree and say Darwin is a Legend!  ;D

I don't think Darwin insulted you  :(
Like every human he was not perfect but he tried to understand the world around him , unlike a lot of people...

Darwin was gay, his ass full of oil.
His head an empty space, no brain at all.
I don´t like Darwin.

I like God, Jesus, John and Elvis.

:)

Quote from: Gryzor on 15:41, 31 October 10
So what is so wrong about the evolution theory?

And accusing Darwin of being wrong is like accusing ancient Sumerians of Greeks that they got the circumference of the earth or the distance to the sun wrong by a few hundreds KMs or so...

You have your POV, you will not change it, so why argue? Congrats to your Ph.D in biology  ;)

But what do you mean with "Sumerians of Greeks". Iran/Irak (todays names for Sumeria) has never been in Greece.

Quote from: TFM/FS on 00:57, 31 October 10

Religion is a means of suppression. And it covers some truth.

In a time religion was questioned more and more a "official" kind of research was established, to cover the same truth. Darwins theory is part of this second "cover the truth" campaign.

Fact is that Darwin is wrong in most points. And fact is also that the people today don't know it, but this will change soon. On the other hand researches already know what's going on, just take a look at the DNA sequence of some species, it's all freely accessible in the net.

Hi TFM

Just currious where did Darwin go wrong??

/ygdrazil

Ok, I take that bait.

Darwin is wrong in the following points (and in others)

- Mutations are the driving force of evolution

- Mutations / genetic changes are accidentally

- Evolution is targetted towards the selection of the fittest / and towards "higher forms in evolution".

Which one of them you like to discuss? Proof can be provided against all of them, but I doubt if you will accept the proove.


Let me finish with an easy example... A bacterium, let's call it E. coli is capable to take compound X from the surrounding media, in severn steps compound X get's degraded in the metabolism in this E. coli cell. For this seven metabolic steps you need seven enzymes to perform one step each. These seven enzymes are encoded by DNA sequences - called genes. These seven genes are directly together on the same piece of DNA (ordered from step 1-7).
So where is Darwins "accidental mutation". Darwin did wenn in his time, but we are not stuck in the 18 century!!! (Ok, public edication IS!!!). The earth is 4.500.000.000 years old, E. coli is on earth roughly half it's life-time. And it's DNA sequence is written down like a computer programm, (it look nearly as good if I would have done it by myself  ;D ). Since the sequences of DNA are not accidental - in contrast they are highly ordered, now tell me who did encode the genome of E. coli in a time life itself was on earth the first time.

All other points are way harder to discuss, and it needs a good part of knowledge about physics too.

Quote from: TFM/FS on 19:27, 01 November 10
Since the sequences of DNA are not accidental - in contrast they are highly ordered, now tell me who did encode the genome of E. coli in a time life itself was on earth the first time.

You should read some Richard Dawkins.

"Natural selection is the only workable explanation for the beautiful and compelling illusion of 'design' that pervades every living body and every organ."

I'm no expert in the evolution theory, but I think you got it all wrong, TFM. When Darwin spoke of the selection process, this did not necessarily mean that there's a definite, (pre)planned path or decision tree by which selection is made. Far from it, he just said that the underlying process[nb]and the thing about how 'random' mutations are is soooo debatable; there's no thing as random, really...[/nb] leads to the selection process.

And, to go back to what I said earlier: accusing him about failing in an aspect of his revolution is like those who like to discredit Freud today. Because, of course, Freud was wrong in so many ways, but his work was so revolutionary and ahead of his time that it just doesn't matter.

Oh, and I never said that the Sumerians had anything to do with Greeks; I was merely pointing out that it's just plain silly to criticise and dismiss someone who is ages ahead of their era just because they got something wrong among their revolutionary work. Not so hard to understand!!!

PS yes, I deleted Leonie's posts; I smell a permaban coming on...

Sure, you're right ... and I have my peace now  ;)  I didn't expect anybody to understand me. It is - as told before - decades to early to talk about certain things.

Well, you edited your message, but you forgot that we get notifications with the original text... And, in reply to *arguments*, you presented a panygeric about yourself, full of conceit and bullshit, effectively saying that you're right in everything because you please your professors. Stop smoking that crack, mate, and give some counter-arguments...

Until then, it's Darwin:1, TFM:0.

Oh, and treating others like stupid simpletons who can't understand your divine musings won't get you any sympathies...

Gryzor wrote:

PS yes, I deleted Leonie's posts; I smell a permaban coming on...

You mean you deleted my post!  ;)  Unfortunately that post was true!  ???

*sigh* yes, sorry mate - deleted it because without the original post it didn't make any sense...

Quote from: Gryzor on 07:25, 03 November 10
Well, you edited your message, but you forgot that we get notifications with the original text... And, in reply to *arguments*, you presented a panygeric about yourself, full of conceit and bullshit, effectively saying that you're right in everything because you please your professors. Stop smoking that crack, mate, and give some counter-arguments...

Until then, it's Darwin:1, TFM:0.

Oh, and treating others like stupid simpletons who can't understand your divine musings won't get you any sympathies...

Gryzor, your behaviour is (even if I relly like you!) sometimes soooo anoying!!! You know nothing about evolution biology, whereas I work since 1992 in it! So you still think you are right? That's what I call the perfect example for being bullheaded and -excuse this, but you proove it- beeing narrow minded.
Instead of believing everything in _too old_ books, you rather should use your mind.

You just want to be right - always! But you're wrong here! So stop it now.

People like you are crippling sciences and give the chains of slavery to free thinking! You should start to open your mind for new ideas and stop bothering people who share some knowledge, which is yet not easiely accessible for everybody.

Darwin:1, Gryzor:-poor-, TFM:-sick of that ignorance-

And btw: If you accuse me for a panygeric of myself, it's not my fault if others don't perform as good as I do.

I _have_ provided arguments in form of an example before, so please read it first, and then start to answer.

I don't know about Crack, but it looks like you do  ;)

Is this really the right Forum for this kind of discussion? I'm all for a little off topic, but not that far off!!! Isn't there a forum over at Google.users.religious.nuts.vs.darwin.org that you could pop over to?

As far as I'm concerned, the only evolution we should be discussing here was started by Konrad Zuse and evolved through the 8-bit era (I have fossils that prove their existance ;) ) up to todays Core Series.
I don't get into religious conversations as I come from one of the many countries where expressing your religion can get you killed.

Bryce.

Well, I agree. Let's focus on the topics.

Well, I'd compare you to Big Bang Theory's Sheldon except that it's only funny in fiction, not in real life.

Again, you just dismiss everyone else as ignorant while exalting yourself. This is... well, I don't know what, but it's certainly not a behavior of men out age. Add to that the fact that you still fail to explain why and where Darwin was wrong, and you might just be smearing walls with poo instead of being in a university.

Just another thing: I've got quite some expertise in some matters myself (as, I suspect, most of us in here). When someone who doesn't know asks me, I try my best to describe and analyze the issue. If I fail, it merely means I'm *not* as good as I thought. Just think about that...

And, of course, I replied to your 'arguments' (random statements do not constitute an argument; you better read up on your logic issues), and then you just said that you're the cleverest ever and we're dumb and ignorant. Way to go!

Quote from: TFM/FS on 15:41, 03 November 10

Gryzor, your behaviour is (even if I relly like you!) sometimes soooo anoying!!! You know nothing about evolution biology, whereas I work since 1992 in it! So you still think you are right? That's what I call the perfect example for being bullheaded and -excuse this, but you proove it- beeing narrow minded.
Instead of believing everything in _too old_ books, you rather should use your mind.

You just want to be right - always! But you're wrong here! So stop it now.

People like you are crippling sciences and give the chains of slavery to free thinking! You should start to open your mind for new ideas and stop bothering people who share some knowledge, which is yet not easiely accessible for everybody.

Darwin:1, Gryzor:-poor-, TFM:-sick of that ignorance-

And btw: If you accuse me for a panygeric of myself, it's not my fault if others don't perform as good as I do.

I _have_ provided arguments in form of an example before, so please read it first, and then start to answer.

I don't know about Crack, but it looks like you do  ;)

Gryzor, you do well in insulting, but you lack any kind of argumentation. Shame on you! :P

You aren't able to understand my argumentation. I can't teach you molecular biology in one post. But I can try to boil it down for you:

The succession of genes on the DNA strands in E. coli is not random (see NCBI DNA database). But if Darwin would be right, then it *must* be random. And it is not random! So Darwin is wrong.

Did Darwin spoke about DNA ?

As i understood about his thoery , DNA mutations append randomly , that's maybe a weak point.There are maybe some other factors, that is more probable than "intelligent design".(God is hidden somewhere between this two words, will you be able to find him?)

But for the other part ,  natural selection is based on the best adaptation for environement.The most adapted survive long enough to reproduce and transmits its DNA.Is this model obsolète ?

Beware about random and organisation, nothing proves this marvellous organisation is not the result of the natural coercition/pressure like some forms of carbon.

I am insulting? May I remind you that you posed (openly and through edited posts) as the Illuminated One, He Who Holds All True, and claimed that the rest of us cannot understand you so we may as well just bow to your opinion? Oh man...

Further to that, it's amazing how you managed to cram so many wrongs in a couple of sentences.

Fano, of course, is 100% correct. Darwin put forward the theory of evolution, not the theory of randomness. So, whether he was right on wrong on the random premise, this does not necessarily affect the truth of his overall breakthrough.

Expecting Darwin to distinguish between randomness and deterministic events, between true chaos and reliance on initial (and subsequent) conditions, is just plain silly[nb]and, as I said, I believe nothing is truly random anyhow[/nb]. See my Greeks/Sumerians/Freud argument. So dismissing him (and dissing him) out of hand is just a sign of ignorance and, of course, utter arrogance.

Furthermore, not only is your E.coli argument totally irrelevant, but you actually failed to show that it's not actually a random event - you just recited a complex process; but complex does not necessarily mean not random. Your analysis and 'proof' is an ex post facto fallacy and thus, quite un-scientific. If you meant something else, sorry, but you failed to show it.

Again, I don't believe anything is random. But it's not part of the discussion[nb]whether it's randomness behind the mutations that lead to evolution or specific reasons is irrelevant to the end result[/nb], and your choice of focus shows how little you understand about science and the philosophy behind it.

To get back to the matter at hand, I think there *is* some truth and hope of reconciliation in the theory of intelligent design, but it's merely a sidestep on the side of the believers towards the reality of science and does nothing to help prove the existence of God. It's just a concession that at least some of the science is true.

Yes it's true that Random doesn't exist! Which is why I'd like the numbers for Lotto this week!  ;)