Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,175 Year: 5,432/9,624 Month: 457/323 Week: 97/204 Day: 13/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No evolution/creation debate in Europe
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2588 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 35 of 107 (443015)
12-23-2007 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Archer Opteryx
12-23-2007 4:21 AM


Re: historical problems
Archer writes:
Muslims have their own biblical literalists.
Well, I'll be damned, but thanks for informing us of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-23-2007 4:21 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2588 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 80 of 107 (479288)
08-26-2008 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Beretta
08-25-2008 10:05 AM


Super-evolution
Beretta writes:
All you really need to do is show us how new and complex genetic information is generated by random mistakes converting bacteria into nuclear scientists and we can all go home -it's that simple.
Perhaps you disagree with prominent creationist Kurt Wise, here, that Homo Erectus can evolve into Homo Sapiens over a few centuries (meaning a rate of evolution that could turn "bacteria to nuclear scientists" in several hundred thousand years). Would you like to comment on Wise's (and AnswersInGenesis's) super speeded up evolution on that thread?
As for the topic, the title is obviously wrong, and there's certainly a creation/evolution debate in Europe, it's just much more toned down than in the U.S. because levels of superstition are measurably lower in Europe, weakening the creationist side considerably.
But the debate is still with us here, certainly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Beretta, posted 08-25-2008 10:05 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Beretta, posted 08-26-2008 9:47 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2588 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 85 of 107 (479331)
08-26-2008 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Beretta
08-26-2008 9:47 AM


Re: Super-evolution
Beretta writes:
blugenius writes:
levels of superstition are measurably lower in Europe, weakening the creationist side considerably.
Or perhaps it means that their level of 'superstition' (an irrational but usually deep-seated belief), the belief that we descended from the apes, is measurably higher than in the USA?
If a belief is based on observation and reasoning, it is never a superstition, whether it is right or wrong. A classic example is when our ancestors believed that the sun went around the earth. This was in no way a superstition as it was a view based on observation, even though it was wrong. However, a culture that believed that the sun was a god in his chariot of fire driving fiery horses around the earth would be indulging in superstition, as the neither the god, the chariot, nor the horses were based on observation.
The hypothesis that the great apes are our closest living relatives was originally built on observations of their physical similarities to us, so even in its early days, right or wrong, it was never a superstition. Then, of course, their behavioural similarities could be observed, then fossils with ape/human characteristics could be observed, then confirming molecular evidence could be observed.
So, in relation to the Europeans and the prevailing view of human origins amongst us, there's no superstition involved, just physical processes, like lots of micro-evolution to separate us from our dear cousins, the chimps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Beretta, posted 08-26-2008 9:47 AM Beretta has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2588 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 93 of 107 (479945)
08-31-2008 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Beretta
08-31-2008 5:51 AM


Evolution happens, baby, notwithstanding your desires!
Beratta writes:
Well the problem is evolutionists are indoctrinating little children into their religious dogma by forcefeeding evolution as fact down their gullible little throats.
Evolution is change over time. It is a phenomenon that can be observed. Biological evolution is change in the frequency of alleles over time, and it is a phenomenon that can be observed.
Admittedly some (maybe most) evolutionists are already the victims of the same agenda but this is the thing - we are trying to wake you up to the consequences of your religion by first showing you that evolution is faith-based not factual, before getting to consequences of a worldview that is not open to competing hypotheses and is thus dogma.
We can explain on what evidential basis we believe evolution is the story of life on earth. Your desire to see our view as being based on religious type faith does not make it so. The mechanisms of modern evolutionary theory can all be observed to exist. Right or wrong, our view is based on observations and what we can infer from them, not blind faith.
Hopefully, should you wake up in time, you will be in a position to fix some of the damage done.
Sometimes you don't have to take the Bibles away -you just need to convert them to your religion and the Bible will be relinquished in time.
You make the basic mistake of all the religiously obsessed. You are in competition with other faith based superstitions like Islam and Hinduism and all the rest, and indoctrination is central to that competition, because so far as evidence for veracity is concerned, you are all on an exact equal zero.
We, on the other hand, just need people to look at the growing pile of evidence for our view and understand it. At present, most of the "gullible" little children of the world are indoctrinated with one of a variety of creation mythologies long before they learn any biology. You show yourself up as a delusional Christian by not recognising this. You know very well that the next generation majority of unborn Egyptians will be Muslims, Indians Hindus and Brazillians, Catholic Christians.
That's your evidence of indoctrination. How could I predict that if religions were allowing people to make their own decisions?
The pathetic cry of "teach the controversy" is just an attempt to extend this indoctrination with evidenceless crap into the science classes.
I think you believe yourself to be honest, Beretta, which means that your capacity for self-delusion is enormous.
Pulling this round to the topic, levels of superstition are lower in Europe than in much of the world, so less people here have psychological blocks about descending from other animals. Not everyone agrees that evolution threatens the bible, like the Archbishop of Canterbury, who could be seen expressing his support for evolutionary biology on our T.V. screens a few days ago.
Even our clergy aren't very superstitious compared to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Beretta, posted 08-31-2008 5:51 AM Beretta has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2588 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 99 of 107 (479985)
08-31-2008 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by cavediver
08-31-2008 10:01 AM


Re: The European politics of creationism/ID
cavediver writes:
Bizarre when you consider the church-attendance figures. I would guess that this represents a combination of leading question and typical man-in-the-street ignorance and stupidity, rather than any real statement of faith.
Sure. Most people know little about it, and it's not in the top twenty political issues (if it's even in the top fifty!). Results are about what I'd expect with those options, but look at the sloppy journalism. This:
quote:
A poll for the BBC Horizon programme in January 2006 revealed that fewer than 50% of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life.
is not the same as this:
quote:
Over 2,000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:
Note the big "O" word, origin, absent from the first quote and present in the second.
Considering the question, which way would theist/evolutionists have voted? They could have gone for either evolution or intelligent design. A lot of respondents would have considered the "evolution theory" option as implying atheism, and 48% for atheism would be a Swedish type level.
The poll actually gives two creationist options, with 39% between them. Interestingly, from memory, a poll around 2001 asking if we "believed in God or a supreme being" came out:
Yes: 38%
Don't know: 28%
No: 34%
So, our percentage of creationist/I.D.ers seem to match the positive theists/deists. That seems to indicate that just about all the theist/evolutionists opted for I.D., and half of those who don't know about God decided they did know about evolution, and it was the best explanation for the origins (cringe) and development of life.!
As for the rest of Europe, we're about average, and all countries come out with a majority for evolution amongst those who have an opinion.
Moose writes:
My question to our European members:
Can and do significant political figures speak out, saying something along the lines of "Creationism and intelligent design do not have any substance and support in what we can and do observe in reality"?
Nationwide, and probably in most local jurisdictions in the U.S., to do such would be political suicide.
It's not nearly such a hot issue here as it is in the U.S., so politicians rarely comment one way or another. It wouldn't be political suicide, although it might not be wise for a party leader (which means potential candidate for P.M.), or an imminently possible party leader to say something like that. As with U.S. presidential candidates, offending even 1% of the population unnecessarily would not be good tactics, so they have to walk a fine diplomatic tightrope (I wouldn't stand a chance in hell, would I?).
Technically, this European country is a theocracy, but the theocrats are mostly science friendly. The Church of England had its first pro-evolution effective leader (the monarch's the official leader) in a 19th century Archbishop of Canterbury, and the present incumbent is an evil evo, as I mentioned in a post above.
An interesting question is whether or not the quality of science education actually makes much difference to general public acceptance. I think that scientific knowledge is only one factor in the decline of religion in Europe. If people do not have religious beliefs of the type that make them reject evolution emotionally, then they accept the idea just as easily as something like tectonic plate theory on the basis that the consensus amongst experts is probably the best explanation we have at this point in time. Those of us who debate here look behind the reasoning, but the majority of Europeans aren't sufficiently interested to bother, frankly.
I've met very few people here who express worry or distaste at the idea of descending from other animals, although such worrying animals certainly exist.
H. Sapiens must be the only extant ape intellectually capable of thinking that it's not one.
We're weird.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by cavediver, posted 08-31-2008 10:01 AM cavediver has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2588 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 100 of 107 (479999)
08-31-2008 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Beretta
08-31-2008 8:31 AM


Re: the evolution indoctrination
Beratta writes:
all they are proposing is presenting the competing hypothesis in terms of scientific evidence that supports it
So, here in Europe (hi Moose) we're waiting for the first piece of scientific evidence that supports this competing hypothesis. Perhaps you'd care to give it to us on one of the relevant threads?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Beretta, posted 08-31-2008 8:31 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024