Darwin's theory is completely without merit.... Darwin himself ruled out his own theory, stating that it was foolish and he was ashamed that his theory had been adopted and spread like wildfire... Darwin converted to Christianity... Albert Einstein also made a case for the Creator. I wonder why thy these facts are not given to our young people in school? Please give your thoughts on this. Thanks
Darwin's theory is pretty much common sense, in retrospect. Also, he was not ashamed of his theory at all. If you have some sort of source that states otherwise, feel free to post it. No, he didn't. The story about his death-bed conversion is a hoax. Not really. If anything, he claimed he believed in some sort of very minimal God, not a personal God or anything that the average person would call 'God'. Even so, this is much different than making a 'case' for it; he simply stated his thoughts. Because they are not facts at all. You should double check your sources.
the main reason for those not to be told to children at school is there not facts, there not true, they are baseless. firstly the big bang has nothing to do with darwin's The "Origin of Species" was about natural selection he knew nothing of quantum mechanical and the big bang thats the realm of stephen hawkins "a Brief History of Time" there is no proof the darwin converted on his deathbed http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/darwin.htm and this next one goto page content http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html and the big bang theory is taught in schools. as for the origin of the species, the theorys and the facts have changed since darwins time, however could you produce proof he stated his ideas were foolish. I will now quote Albert einstein to show what he thought about a creator. "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religion than it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism." "I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." "The important thing is not to stop questioning."
Dear Darlas, I think you are oversimplifying. Darwin did not object to his own application of Darwinian Theory... he was quite on his own side there. What you must be referring to is Darwin's opposition to the Popular Application of derivative notions into what we refer to as "Social Darwinism" -- that Superior Races survive by committing Genocide against inferior Races. It was through the Acceptance of the Tenets of Social Darwinism that the English wished to conquer the World, thus starting World War One; and then the German's with World War Two, and now the Jews with World War Three. And yes, Darwin saw it all coming and regretted the popular misapplication of his notions of Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest, but he never renounced those ideas as they applied to the Evolution of Animal Species.
darlas...Just as an aside, The Big Bang theory was developed by Georges Lemaitre--a Catholic Priest. Einstein's told Lemaitre his caculations were correct but "your grasp of physics is abominable." Few years later, Einstein changed his mind and told Lemaitre his theory was "beautiful".
Darwin's theory was incomplete, as he didn't know about genetics. However, his theory was correct in many areas, and has been improved upon over the past 100 years. He did no such thing, and I suggest you actually research these claims you heard in passing, before you parrot them. Darwin converted to Christianity... Really? Where, exactly? Because they are, in truth, factual inaccuracies. It wouldn't be a bad idea for you to take a Biology 101 course. Also, how is the theory of evolution relevant to the Big Bang theory? They are two entirely seperate theories.
Here is how those theories relate - they are without solid, concrete proof...unless someone who witnessed the dawn of creation is still around to enlighten the world. All these theories are not unlike being a Christian in that it's all a matter of faith. Faith in God, faith in nothing, faith in random accidental creation....etc.
This is idiotic. Do you claim to know any history? Because chances are, you weren't there. Yet history is backed by evidence, just like the Big Bang.
Science requires very concrete proof for any theory to become generally accepted. Why do you think the Big Bang Theory has been around for such a long time and that it is the leading theory as to how the Universe came into existence (in the scientific world, that is)? Because it has quite concrete, although indirect, evidence that it occured. Many different facts, such as the Universe is expanding, point to the fact that the Universe most likely originated from a single point in space. Of course this is still only a theory, we don't know where the original mass that exploded came from, but many facts that we have found today suggest that that is what happened. It's not really a matter of faith, it is a matter of logical deduction. We see what is around us today, and we can make a prediction as to how it came to be using solid scientific fact. Religion, on the other hand, is quite different. I found a quote that shows the difference between science and religion quite well: "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy."
Darlas, The fact of evolution is one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs in the history of mankind. Darwin stated his pride in being able to demonstrate two things: The fact of evolution, and his theories of how evolution occurs. The truth is the complete opposite. From his autobiography http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm ….. Thus disbelief crept over me at very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true;….. Einstein was an atheist even to his last moments. Because they are hopelessly and utterly wrong.
darlas has faith moron. your paper with some university name can't compete with that when you're on your deathbead. Take it for what it is. :m:
The jury did not directly witness the murder. Hence, they cannot make an informed decision about whether the accused is guilty. Looks like we will have the throw the justice system out the window!
I'm assuming you're joking considering your current views on faith, unless I missed something. If not: a degree from a university marks a significantly greater accomplishment in life than merely believing in something.
Yes, I was being sarcastic. But then I suppose if Albert Einstein made a case for a creator then it must be true that God exists. If Darwin converted to Christianity, then it must be true that God exists. Foolish appeals to authority. I am not sure how even one arrives from those premises to "big bang theory - foolish - " In case she did not know, Darwin had nothing to do with the Big Bang theory. I will venture to say, from what I have read, neither did Einstein although his work may have been instrumental. So: WTF is the point of this thread again? Cess -
Most of you might not know it but actually it was Darwin who first came up with the idea of Big Bang, it was only later when God got the idea.
Of course it says God had a body in the Bible - first of all, Man was created in his image - so presumably God is of humanoid form. Secondly, God is described in Chapter 3 of Genesis as "walking in the Garden" - which presumably implies that he had legs to walk with. As SouthStar pointed out, darlas, for this forum you really do need a little more for a thread entitled "Big Bang Theory - Foolish" than "Darwin's theory is completely without merit...." You need to give at least some reasonable explanation (which the rest of us would still have no trouble demolishing) as to why you believe that one of the most fundamental theories in science is "without merit". As to deathbed conversions, and the like... In 1905, alongside the classic paper on Special Relativity, one of Einstein's other papers that year put quantum theory on its firmest foundations yet and established it as a real aspect of the physical world (something Max Planck had not really been able to do). In later decades, however, he was not at all happy with the implications of quantum theory, particularly the element which derived from the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg, and Heisenberg and Bohr's classic Copenhagen Interpretation. His opposition to these scientific theories have done nothing to remove their acceptance from the world of physics as a whole. Alfred Wallace did genuinely recant from parts of the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (in particular when it came to the evolution of Man), but this did not remove him as a viable and almost co-eval contributor to the Theory as expounded by Darwin. As has been extensively pointed out, the Big Bang theory and the theory of Evolution are not related - the theory of Evolution owes nothing to the concept that the Universe was created at a particular point, except that it evidently requires that the Solar System was created at least 3 billion years ago, which fortunately all the evidence shows to be the case. But the alternative to the Big Bang theory in rational scientific circles was the Steady State theory in which the Universe as a whole had existed infinitely into the past. This theory does not stand up to the evident expansion of the Universe and the background radiation detected in 1965 which stands as the echo of the Big Bang itself. On the other hand it would represent a TOTAL denial of the concept that the Universe was created by God - which the Big Bang theory does not do - so far.
I gotta answer for you Darlas: The Big Bang Theory is completely and utterly false. The dictionary defines a bang as: A sudden loud noise, as of an explosion. A sudden loud blow or bump. Sound doesn't travel in space. So the Big Bang theory is an oxymoron to start with. And we have the theories about antimatter, and all. Antimatter is for real, but the precept of a reverse time parallel universe is about as much a stretch of faith as anyone can imagine. Oh yeah, I'm sure I'll catch bullets on this one. But tell me if antimatter was so great, why isn't someone doing something great with it. NASA sure has been trying: http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/Papers/NASA_anti.pdf If there was a free lunch we would probably be eating it by now. I haven't heard an all-encompassing energy theory that takes antimatter into account, but when it gets done, I am certain the conservation of energy will remain valid, and that it took a supernatural metaphysical event to start things off. Somebody needs to cut to the chase and line up the energy theories without all this hype about a mirror universe that nobody can prove.
