Darwin 150th Anniversary
Poll: Darwin 150th Anniversary
Total Members Polled: 223
Discussion
Seeing as this is the time of Darwin's 150th anniversary for the publication of the 'origin of species' , what is the population of Pistonheads view on how life is what it is today?
My stance is that Darwin got it spot on and the overwhelming evidence collected over the 150 years since his observations and predictions has supported it and confirmed it all the way.
In my view this is where science completely places all religions in to the topic of fairytales.
My stance is that Darwin got it spot on and the overwhelming evidence collected over the 150 years since his observations and predictions has supported it and confirmed it all the way.
In my view this is where science completely places all religions in to the topic of fairytales.
Rotary Madness said:
I too am for Darwins theroy, but i remember my old a-level biology teacher telling me it wasnt completely spot on, and his theory alone didnt explain life etc. Unfortunatly she didnt go into it any further so ive no idea what she was on about 
abiogenesis is a whole different subject really, there's a chap on youtube who's made some very good videos on the matter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
AJI said:
In my view this is where science completely places all religions in to the topic of fairytales.
Which just goes to show how ignorant you are. Jainism teaches that a immaterial entity such as a God cannot create a material entity like the universe or indeed life. Buddha believed the whole question of the creation of the universe and life were not relevant to what he was teaching.plasticpig said:
AJI said:
In my view this is where science completely places all religions in to the topic of fairytales.
Which just goes to show how ignorant you are. Jainism teaches that a immaterial entity such as a God cannot create a material entity like the universe or indeed life. Buddha believed the whole question of the creation of the universe and life were not relevant to what he was teaching.I like to watch peoples' reactions when they are told that Darwin was a Christian. 
It is sort of funny because all of the anti-religious extremists (there is an ironic term - but they do exist) use Darwin in their anti-religious arguments. The irony is that Darwin simply wanted to prove his point, not dispell Christianity. I for one, as 99% of Christians I know, believe in some form of evolution.
It is sort of funny because all of the anti-religious extremists (there is an ironic term - but they do exist) use Darwin in their anti-religious arguments. The irony is that Darwin simply wanted to prove his point, not dispell Christianity. I for one, as 99% of Christians I know, believe in some form of evolution. Jimbeaux said:
fluffnik said:
Jimbeaux said:
I like to watch peoples' reactions when they are told that Darwin was a Christian.
He was pretty lapsed in later life...He might well have killed (his) god...
fluffnik said:
Jimbeaux said:
fluffnik said:
Jimbeaux said:
I like to watch peoples' reactions when they are told that Darwin was a Christian.
He was pretty lapsed in later life...He might well have killed (his) god...
plasticpig said:
AJI said:
In my view this is where science completely places all religions in to the topic of fairytales.
Which just goes to show how ignorant you are. Jainism teaches that a immaterial entity such as a God cannot create a material entity like the universe or indeed life. Buddha believed the whole question of the creation of the universe and life were not relevant to what he was teaching.To have a point of view and a trust in proven science is ignorant?
The difference between what I accept as reality and what you appear to point out is that I do not have to 'believe' in what is reality. ie. I have the science which prooves the facts, whereas you seem to want to force the opinion that because other storytales do not have a god creating humans then religion is therefore still better than science.
Is that what you are trying to suggest?
Judging by your reply there it must stand to reason that you are also ignorant to have your own point of view, is that correct?
i recommend anyone remotely interested in this read some of richard dawkins' books.
contains lines such as "the bible is a badly translated corroboration of middle eastern folklore"
also he talks about a mistake being made as to the translation of the word for "young woman" and it not being "virgin"
good read if you're at all interested in evolution
ETA i dont see why some people can accept the works of people like einstein and newton and not the findings of an equally great scientist. proof is proof.
if the bible was as factual as the origin of species maybe id give it a bit more attention
contains lines such as "the bible is a badly translated corroboration of middle eastern folklore"
also he talks about a mistake being made as to the translation of the word for "young woman" and it not being "virgin"
good read if you're at all interested in evolution
ETA i dont see why some people can accept the works of people like einstein and newton and not the findings of an equally great scientist. proof is proof.
if the bible was as factual as the origin of species maybe id give it a bit more attention
Edited by samdale on Monday 28th September 09:36
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff