Surely this will silence a lot of you...

reply to post by Good Wolf


hello

The "church" is wrong a lot of the time, including the Bible. The church of England is not the Bastion of Christ and hasn't been for a long time

i think you'll find that the Bible has always said the earth was a globe and not flat

you really need to look into that myth, it was not from the church apart it was never an official stance of the church. You will find that in
the late medieval times the church had the view of a spherical earth.

The origins of the flat each view actually begin with pagan societies of the Sumarians and Babylonians. Once again we have Christianity accused of falsehood, purely because people do not look for themselves but repeat what they have heard.


The Sumarians viewed the earth as flat disc and the Babylonians viewed the earth as like a mountain upon a flat ocean of water

Bede 673 735ad wrote of a Spherical earth

St. Virgil of Salzburg 745- 784ad wrote of a spherical earth

William of Conches 1080- 1184 ad taught the earch was spherical

Johannes de Sacrobosco 1195-1256ad wrote the earth was spherical


the book

The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828) by washington Irving is a place that many give as the starting point of a revival of the flat earth theory.

many secular writers of the time of Darwin were actually flat earth writers in unjustified attacks on Christianity.

Again, although some church people, just as laymen also did believe in flat earth, they were a minority at it has never been the position that the "church" held that view, it is complete myth.

david

Originally posted by Good Wolf
pfffh! If I make a prediction that one 'race' of people are going to exterminate an other that doesn't make me a racist, and it didn't make Darwin a racist either.

It does if you believe the race that will be exterminated is inferior. (or was inferior)

To say "I hope it's my 'race' that exterminates that particular other 'race'" would be racist. And in an evolutionary sense, "superior" means better suited (adapted) to an environment.

Superior always means that. Superior means better at whatever the situational task may be.

By the way, that's almost hs bad as saying "you're not short! you're verticaly challenged!"

To throw extermination to the equation then the superior species/subspecies, through process of competition, will reduced the population of another species/subspecies. That's the definition of survival of the fittest.

That’s Social Darwinism. Thanks.

Also, show me some research that shows that 'cheating' or murder is an inherited disposition, please.

It has to do with the production of a peptide hormone called vasopressin; it has to do with the amount of copies of a RS3 334 gene.

One of many articles on the subject here

Now, you guys. If you are gonna keep on this tired argument that Darwin was a racist, then why not go make a new thread?

He was racist; I don’t see what the big deal is. It does not mean that he is any less correct on his theory.

racism isnt recognising differance, its ignoring the similarities to make the differances an issue

the simple and short answer to your assertion is.

No

[edit on 9/18/2008 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by Good Wolf
pfffh! If I make a prediction that one 'race' of people are going to exterminate an other that doesn't make me a racist, and it didn't make Darwin a racist either.

It does if you believe the race that will be exterminated is inferior. (or was inferior)

No. Racism is a form of favouritism of a particular 'race' and an opinionated 'superiority'. A prediction has nothing to do with favouritism.

To throw extermination to the equation then the superior species/subspecies, through process of competition, will reduced the population of another species/subspecies. That's the definition of survival of the fittest.

That’s Social Darwinism. Thanks.

Social is one area that Darwinism plays, sure, but that's not racism.

It has to do with the production of a peptide hormone called vasopressin; it has to do with the amount of copies of a RS3 334 gene.

One of many articles on the subject here

Cheers, mate.

He was racist; I don’t see what the big deal is. It does not mean that he is any less correct on his theory.

Well he's not racist. Al least not by anything you guys have shown. Let's look at the definition from dictionary.com, aye.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
rac·ism /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ –noun

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Yea, he don't fit the bill.

A good example or racism (apart from the obvious KKK) is the mormon church. For a time up until the 70's they did not allow blacks as priests because they thought that black skin was the mark of cain [idiots]. A court case eventually halted their official discrimination but no doubt, the discrimination would have continued.

And again, this is nowhere on topic, so why not go start another thread?

[edit on 9/18/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by drevill

that the Bible has always said the earth was a globe and not flat

the bible says nothing on the subject i think you mean the church

the myth that the earth was flat medieval thinking comes from an american journalist i believe - if somthing gets repeated enough it becomes true and it was repeated a lot

but off topic both this and the replied to post >_<


[edit on 18/9/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by JPhish

racism isnt recognising differance, its ignoring the similarities to make the differances an issue

the simple and short answer to your assertion is.

No

[edit on 9/18/2008 by JPhish]

if Darwin said White people are supperior to black people then yepp fair enough

he says that one of them must be supperior (believing they are both subspecies) but no where have you or mrs clearskys shown he meant caucasian is best or that he thought this in all situations and enviroments


this is what i meant by recognising differance isnt racist, if i point out your taller/shorter then me am i bieng sizest?

if i said your shorter/taller then me thierfore your inferior it becomes racist

and the fitest isnt an in every way shape and form either nor is it a constant, the best solution for one problem will differ to the solution for another problem. bieng the fitest in you enviroment comparde to the indegenious species of that enviroment wont make you the fittest when shoved into any other enviroment



[edit on 18/9/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 18/9/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by drevill
reply to post by Good Wolf

 

The "church" is wrong a lot of the time, including the Bible.

You could argue that all churches are, but anyway I agree. The church being wrong and apologising is what this thread is about after all.

i think you'll find that the Bible has always said the earth was a globe and not flat

Firstly, I've heard otherwise but then again, I'm not expert on scripture and could be wrong.

Secondly, I never said that the bible sez the earth was flat.

I said it sez that the Earth is the centre of the universe. I also said it sez there is a non-existent firmament. I would also say that it was wrong about alot of other things aswell, but lets not start that fight, aye.

reply to post by noobfun


his favour of one race over another is irrelevant to what i'm trying to say. He believed that one race can be superior to another. That in essence, is a racist.

Like i said, it doesn't make his theory any more or less valid . . . Nor am i saying he is an evil man.

I do understand your point noob. I admit that my tract is not very detailed. It's a very simplistic notion and line of reasoning; but although undemanding, it still appears to be true, given the terms being used and presented.

My assertion that Darwin was racist, is of little importance.

reply to post by JPhish


Oh for pete's sake, J. For him to be racist there would need to be a preference or bias to a specific 'race'. He didn't have one in these quotes and no one has brought any that even hint at one.

He just isn't a racist.

reply to post by Good Wolf


Racism, by its simplest definition, is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.-wikipedia

Darwin believed this.

having preference or bias for a race is not necessary for one to be racist.

he was racist, there is not even a question about it.

good-day

he takes each on its own merit in thier own enviroment

so each ethno group is better then the other in thier own area, meaning he thinks every group is superior and inferior at the same time if your leaving out the context

but making everyone superior and inferior at the same time ....... is a hellofalong way from what was bieng earlier

he is racist because he thinks everyone is awesome and crappy at the same time hahah i can live with that

[edit on 18/9/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 18/9/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by Good Wolf


I don't know about this. Darwin had some interesting things to say about the races, in particular those of black ancestry. In his writings he said some blatantly racist things.

reply to post by AshleyD


Well no one has shown any.

reply to post by JPhish


I did give you a definition for racism and it requires some form of bias.



Shall we all stop talking about this as it seems everyone has made up their minds on the Darwin racism front. I mean if it's come down to arguing about the minute factors of the definition then we are getting nowhere really fast. I mean it's not like the guy championed for the extermination of Jews.

I would've thought that Darwin being a Christian (for most of his life anyway) would be more discussion worthy than whether or not he was minutely racist.

reply to post by AshleyD



and so did God shall be both find a bunch of quotes and then accuse each other of misquoting and misinterpretation or shall we just forget it and get back to topic?

reply to post by noobfun


I say we forget it and get back on topic. It's been discussed enough around here and isn't really a secret.

I think this may be a move in preparation of the anniversary of Darwin in Feb 2009. darwin-online.org.uk...

You won't get any of that admission from the majority, though.

reply to post by drevill

Once again we have Christianity accused of falsehood, purely because people do not look for themselves but repeat what they have heard.


The Sumarians viewed the earth as flat disc and the Babylonians viewed the earth as like a mountain upon a flat ocean of water

Bede 673 735ad wrote of a Spherical earth

St. Virgil of Salzburg 745- 784ad wrote of a spherical earth

William of Conches 1080- 1184 ad taught the earch was spherical

Johannes de Sacrobosco 1195-1256ad wrote the earth was spherical

Er, what the hell are you talking about?

Actually, the bible makes reference to "the circle of the Earth", which some people have taken to refer to as a sphere - but it also describes a flat disk. Phrases in the bible likening the sky to a "dome" or a "tent" seems to confirm the disk idea - since tents and domes typically don't form a spherical shape.

The oldest known biblical texts are the Dead Sea Scrolls, and they don't seem to support the spherical earth. At least not in any clear or definitive sense.

The Greeks, however, were speculating on the correct shape of the Earth (as well as other celestial bodies) around 500BC on, long before the Dead Sea Scrolls were written, and had confirmed it with a fairly accurate measurement by Eratosthenes at around 240BC.

So while the "divinely inspired" biblical authors were still guessing at vague geometries - the Greeks with reasoned logic and mathmatics had not only gotten the shape of the Earth clearly right - but they MEASURED it's diameter.

Originally posted by Good2Go
I think this may be a move in preparation of the anniversary of Darwin in Feb 2009. darwin-online.org.uk...

You won't get any of that admission from the majority, though.

awesome we should get a happy Darwin day every year not just special occassions



*******
my bad it wasnt an american journalist as i heard it appears to have been the Historical Association (of Britain) - we should be good at history we have lots of it!!! silly people

[edit on 18/9/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by AshleyD

Ashley you said this:

I'm not a young earth creationist so none of that means anything to me. I do not believe the universe is only 6,000 years old.

and then you said this in your other thread:

No, I don't think the universe is billions of years old. There is too much scientific evidence to call this timing into question.

So based on your interpretation of The Bible, how old is the Universe? How old is the Earth?

Sorry if I missed the answer to that in this thread or in the other one. I plan on reading more later today.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I personally think it is somewhere in between- bordering on longer than more recent. There is a thread entitled 'The Gullibility of Creationists' where I explain my thoughts on the subject (but I remember the word 'Gullibility' being misspelled in the thread title). Let me try to find it....

Ah here we go: The 'Gullability' of Creationists.

Pretty much all of my comments on that thread pertain to the age of the earth and I explain how I came to my conclusion. Concerning the age of the earth: This is something where my mind isn't made up. Too much conflicting evidence that all has some grounds for belief but not total acceptance.

I'm kind of an 'earth age agnostic.' Seems like somewhat of a non-issue to me, to be honest. Whether it is 6,000 years old, billions of years old, or somewhere in between (my personal view), really doesn't matter to me and I can be swayed if the argument was correct and the evidence fit flawlessly. You'll often year me say, 'I am not necessarily a YEC or an OEC.' My mind simply hasn't been made up but either way the cookie crumbles is cool with me in that regard. I lean towards an older universe but not as old as the consensus of secular science claims and not the strict 'The earth is 6,000 years old and if you deny it then you are Hell bound' group, either.

Billions of years old evidence: Pretty solid but has some flaws.
Middle ground evidence: Pretty solid and the most solid IMO which is why I accept this but still has some flaws.
6,000 years old evidence: The weakest among them all, IMO, but I don't want to laugh at them either or authoritatively say they are incorrect because they do raise some good questions and make some points that make me go, 'Hm... Interesting.'

So, I lean towards 'old' but not 'oldest' and definitely not 'young.'

[edit on 9/18/2008 by AshleyD]

That begs the question, what do you believed happened at the beginning (time element removed)?

When I was a christian, I believed in evolution and the big bang theory (which doesn't actually try to explain where everything came from but what happened once it was here - just like evolution & abiogenesis). I believed because I could see how it worked with the same elegance as all the other laws in nature, it was like a piece of art and just like everything else in his gallery Gods signature was sitting it the corner.

I didn't understand why so many of my peers gave me crap for it, but of course they didn't understand me either.

Creationism is a big thing in the states but it's big in New Zealand churches too, but they are largely unaware of the problem. They don't understand enough about the natural laws to know how they make genesis problematic, ignorant bliss.