Darwin in Poland

22.03.06, 12:56
Much has been written about creationism v. evolution in the US (even heard
some in the much less fanatical UK).
Why are Poles not joining in the fun?
Too sensible perhaps? Or is it because the Commies used Darwin to attack the
Church on this hilariously vulnerable point (it's all an allegory really,
isn't it?) and it's a sore point historically?

    • usenetposts Re: Darwin in Poland 22.03.06, 13:55
      There is nothing worth rebutting in the theory of evolution. It is nonsense
      from start to finish.
      • albertodemarinis Re: Darwin in Poland 22.03.06, 14:23
        Why the theory of evolution is nonsense?
        • varsovian Re: Darwin in Poland 22.03.06, 16:41
          Because it shows planet Earth to be older than the Biblical version, i.e. about
          10,000 years.
          ... and don't go too far west because you will fall off the end of the Earth.
          Seriously, the theory of evolution has eveolved tremendously, and now takes
          into account all the cataclisms which have afflicted the planet over the last
          several hundred million years.
          Creationism too has developed - it says life is so complex God must have
          created it somehow. This "intelligent" theory is called "intelligent
          design" ... but is rejected by intelligent people unless they have been
          subjected to religious lobotomy treatment. This treatment involves being part
          of a church which unfortunately believes in a silly theory and you have no
          alternative but to accept all their dogma - otherwise they kick you out as an
          unbeliever. Such people have to develop a theory called "intelligent
          hypocrisy" where officially you accept the theory but you never speak in favour
          of it. Like Catholic girls and condoms really.
          • nasza_maggie Re: Darwin in Poland 22.03.06, 16:43
            you guys start off some heavy debates.... smile

            hmmmm....
            • ianek70 Re: Darwin in Poland 22.03.06, 16:53
              nasza_maggie napisała:

              > you guys start off some heavy debates.... smile
              >
              > hmmmm....

              Well, it took humankind millions of years to evolve these brains, so it would
              be a shame not to use them...
              • nasza_maggie Re: Darwin in Poland 22.03.06, 17:21
                ianek70 napisał:

                > nasza_maggie napisała:
                >
                > > you guys start off some heavy debates.... smile
                > >
                > > hmmmm....
                >
                > Well, it took humankind millions of years to evolve these brains, so it would
                > be a shame not to use them...

                smile hmmmmmmmm
          • albertodemarinis Re: Darwin in Poland 22.03.06, 17:03
            I'm completely agree with you Varsovian..
            I think that life is a chemical process..
            I don't know who is the designer, maybe God
            maybe not..
            But i can't believe in god just because i'm
            supposed to do.

            Alberto
          • usenetposts Re: Darwin in Poland 23.03.06, 13:51
            varsovian napisał:

            > Because it shows planet Earth to be older than the Biblical version, i.e.
            about
            >
            > 10,000 years.

            It doesn't "show" anything of the thought, it only claims that, and needs for
            that to be true in order for itself to be true.

            In fact there is no evidence that life evolved by the pure application of a
            mindless chemical algorithm.

            > ... and don't go too far west because you will fall off the end of the Earth.

            It has nothing to do with that. The Bible does not claim that the world is
            flat, neither is there any theology that requires it in the Christian faith.

            > Seriously, the theory of evolution has eveolved tremendously, and now takes
            > into account all the cataclisms which have afflicted the planet over the last
            > several hundred million years.

            Not really. The cryogenic still presents an awful problem for them, neither
            does anyone have any sensible answers for why the K/T event should have killed
            the dinosaurs, of all sizes and the flying and swimming ones included but not
            the crocodiles, birds, fish, mammals, etc.

            > Creationism too has developed - it says life is so complex God must have
            > created it somehow. This "intelligent" theory is called "intelligent
            > design" ... but is rejected by intelligent people unless they have been
            > subjected to religious lobotomy treatment. This treatment involves being part
            > of a church which unfortunately believes in a silly theory and you have no
            > alternative but to accept all their dogma - otherwise they kick you out as an
            > unbeliever. Such people have to develop a theory called "intelligent
            > hypocrisy" where officially you accept the theory but you never speak in
            favour

            On the contrary. It is possible for a person to have an unbelieving background,
            detect that evolution is a fairy story, and then, after a pursuit of truth with
            total intellectual honesty arrive at theism, supernatural creation, and a
            personal God. That happened to me, in fact. I did not have any anti-
            evolutionary brainwashing, quite the opposite in fact, and I came to
            Creationism on my own account.

            >
            > of it. Like Catholic girls and condoms really.

            Nothing to do with Catholicism. as is mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the
            RCs sold out over the issue, although of course there are many Catholics who
            believe in Creation, and who believe in ID or theistic evolution, which is a
            pointless and untrue compromise. Their Church regards it a matter of individual
            conscience, and a person can believe it or not.

            It is quite amazing, really. They don't care if someone believes whether God
            actually made the world or not, as long as they believe that god fits inside of
            pieces of wood and pieces of bread. In fact, a God who didn't actually make the
            world is even better suited to their purpose, as they can fit Him inside their
            pices of wood and brass and bread more easily.
        • usenetposts Re: Darwin in Poland 23.03.06, 13:39
          albertodemarinis napisał:

          > Why the theory of evolution is nonsense?

          Because it leaves more questions unanswered than it answers. Neither is it even
          backed up by fossil evidence, which is consistent with a worldwide flood.

          If you wish to know more, I recommend the following in Italian (it has a few
          articles and links also to a much bigger article base in English)

          www.answersingenesis.org/Italian/
          • hardenfelt Re: Darwin in Poland 23.03.06, 17:31
            usenetposts napisał:

            > albertodemarinis napisał:
            >
            > > Why the theory of evolution is nonsense?
            >
            > Because it leaves more questions unanswered than it answers. Neither is it
            even
            >
            > backed up by fossil evidence, which is consistent with a worldwide flood.


            Are you taking yourself serious?
            • usenetposts Re: Darwin in Poland 23.03.06, 18:02
              hardenfelt napisał:

              > usenetposts napisał:
              >
              > > albertodemarinis napisał:
              > >
              > > > Why the theory of evolution is nonsense?
              > >
              > > Because it leaves more questions unanswered than it answers. Neither is i
              > t
              > even
              > >
              > > backed up by fossil evidence, which is consistent with a worldwide flood.
              >
              >
              >
              > Are you taking yourself serious?

              I have spent years on Usenet discussing the subject with the hardened and very
              well informed scientists that they have on such groups as talk.origins and they
              have failed to convince me of the theory of evolution. They have not been able
              to give convincing answers to my questions. If you would like to try your hand
              at it, then we can talk about it.

              We might start by asking how life could have appeared from non-life by
              evolutionary mechanisms, when the simplest viable cell contains so many amino-
              acids and some many protein sequences in a precise order that the entire time
              and space available in the universe since the Big Bang is not likely to have
              accounted for it.

              We might then continue to ask questions like why, if there is no meaning to
              life, have brains evolved that seek to analyse the meaning of life? Isn't that
              an evolutionary dead end, if it's a lie? And if there is no meaning, then what
              is the sense in adhering to any moral code?

              These are just two of about 15 questions which I find evolutionists have no
              credible answers for.

              Whereas my philosophical system has far fewer unanswered questions, and at
              least gives reasons why the unanswered questions cannot be answered now.
              • hardenfelt Re: Darwin in Poland 24.03.06, 06:30
                David wrote:
                > I have spent years on Usenet discussing the subject with the hardened and
                very
                > well informed scientists that they have on such groups as talk.origins and
                they
                >
                > have failed to convince me of the theory of evolution. They have not been
                able
                > to give convincing answers to my questions. If you would like to try your
                hand
                > at it, then we can talk about it.
                >
                > We might start by asking how life could have appeared from non-life by
                > evolutionary mechanisms, when the simplest viable cell contains so many amino-
                > acids and some many protein sequences in a precise order that the entire time
                > and space available in the universe since the Big Bang is not likely to have
                > accounted for it.

                I don’t have the slightest interest in knowing why human beings (or slowworms)
                are inhabiting the universe. I just don’t care. This is why I accept science
                when they explain that life evolved. I am of course a sceptic and if anyone
                presents me to an alternative explanation I might very well accept that this
                could be true. But NOT a biblical version. The bible is just a dusty book
                written by or about a number of psychopaths over a long period. Furthermore it
                is written by humans and there seem to be almost consensus that the original
                meaning has been changed over the centuries due to bad translation work and
                omissions. It’s been written within the past few thousand years, and I do
                believe we have evidence that the earth is at least 100,000 years old. On these
                grounds I reject the biblical version.

                But – as someone else mentioned – it’s really not a very interesting discussion.

                David wrote:
                > We might then continue to ask questions like why, if there is no meaning to
                > life, have brains evolved that seek to analyse the meaning of life? Isn't
                that
                > an evolutionary dead end, if it's a lie? And if there is no meaning, then
                what
                > is the sense in adhering to any moral code?

                But now you open up for at much more interesting discussion – the meaning of
                life. There is off course none. Seen from the sideline there is nothing
                specially interesting about human beings. We fuck, eat, kill each other, sleep,
                reproduce ourselves and build pyramids – again and again generation after
                generation. We are a result of chemical processes and we return to this form
                (the bible wisely observed this fact too). If you want a meaning with life then
                you have to create it yourself.

                And yes – very possible that it’s an evolutionary dead end. Humans seem to
                possess a number of self-destructive traits and I find it most likely that we
                will finally exterminate ourselves. But then again – I don’t consider myself to
                be a prophet so maybe something else will happen. But you seem to look for
                perfection in something with is on the move all the time. If it was perfect it
                wouldn’t be on the move.

                Then comes the sense of adhering to a moral code. The answer is quite simple;
                just like in the case with laws you adhere to moral codes to avoid being
                punished. There is no universal moral code. Moral codes are just one of the
                lowest layers of directives (after constitutions, international agreements,
                laws and so on) and you probably adhere to different moral codes in different
                social groups. If you infringe the rules you are punish with the denial or
                suspension of trust and you might be expelled from this particular social
                group. But there is nothing universal in moral codes (or laws) – they change
                depending on the needs of society.

                • usenetposts Re: Darwin in Poland 24.03.06, 14:01
                  hardenfelt napisał:

                  > David wrote:
                  > > I have spent years on Usenet discussing the subject with the hardened and
                  >
                  > very
                  > > well informed scientists that they have on such groups as talk.origins an
                  > d
                  > they
                  > >
                  > > have failed to convince me of the theory of evolution. They have not been
                  >
                  > able
                  > > to give convincing answers to my questions. If you would like to try your
                  >
                  > hand
                  > > at it, then we can talk about it.
                  > >
                  > > We might start by asking how life could have appeared from non-life by
                  > > evolutionary mechanisms, when the simplest viable cell contains so many a
                  > mino-
                  > > acids and some many protein sequences in a precise order that the entire
                  > time
                  > > and space available in the universe since the Big Bang is not likely to h
                  > ave
                  > > accounted for it.
                  >
                  > I don’t have the slightest interest in knowing why human beings (or sloww
                  > orms)
                  > are inhabiting the universe. I just don’t care. This is why I accept scie
                  > nce
                  > when they explain that life evolved. I am of course a sceptic and if anyone
                  > presents me to an alternative explanation I might very well accept that this
                  > could be true. But NOT a biblical version. The bible is just a dusty book
                  > written by or about a number of psychopaths over a long period. Furthermore
                  it
                  > is written by humans and there seem to be almost consensus that the original
                  > meaning has been changed over the centuries due to bad translation work and
                  > omissions. It’s been written within the past few thousand years, and I do
                  >
                  > believe we have evidence that the earth is at least 100,000 years old. On
                  these
                  >
                  > grounds I reject the biblical version.
                  >
                  > But – as someone else mentioned – it’s really not a very inte
                  > resting discussion.

                  It must have been interesting enough to bring it up, and I hasten to add it
                  wasn't me who did so. I have been happy enough to watch 7000 posts go by on
                  this group without feeling the need to argue about the origin, and I am
                  perfectly content to let another 7000 go by, but if someone wishes to talk
                  about it, my views are no secret, and I am always ready to argue for them.

                  Nobody can say I have pushed my creationist views down anybody's throat, though.
    • mmaupa Re: Darwin in Poland 22.03.06, 17:37
      The Poles are not "joining the fun" because the majority of the country is
      Catholic and from what I remember John Paul II accepted (sort of) the theory of
      evolution in 1996 or thereabouts.

      Hope that answers your question.
      • ianek70 Re: Darwin in Poland 22.03.06, 19:47
        mmaupa napisała:

        > The Poles are not "joining the fun" because the majority of the country is
        > Catholic and from what I remember John Paul II accepted (sort of) the theory
        of
        > evolution in 1996 or thereabouts.

        "Origin of Species" was published in 1859, Wojtyła sort of accepted the theory
        in 1996. A slow reader, was he? Or were the mysteries of creation and life just
        not a great priority for him?
    • yoric Re: Darwin in Poland 23.03.06, 19:52
      You have almost tricked me into joining the debate. Sure it is very hard to be
      told that 'evolution has no support' and listen to it calmly. But any discussion
      would be a perfect waste of time on both sides and is also likely to claim
      lives, so i only offer this as a reply: smile

      www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
      • usenetposts Re: Darwin in Poland 23.03.06, 19:59
        yoric napisał:

        > You have almost tricked me into joining the debate. Sure it is very hard to be
        > told that 'evolution has no support' and listen to it calmly. But any
        discussio
        > n
        > would be a perfect waste of time on both sides and is also likely to claim
        > lives, so i only offer this as a reply: smile
        >
        > www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

        I know that this is intended as a parody of the ID debate going on in America,
        but actually many a true word is spoken in jest. Of course the law of gravity
        is part of God's creation, and He made it, He created it and Himself is not
        bound by it, and it is true that there is a conflict between Planckian physics
        and Newtonian-Einsteinian physics so that physicists are looking for that grand
        unified theory that links the two together and I believe a proper understanding
        of the Bible and how God works in this Creation and the reasons he made this
        Creation, as shown in the scripture, can give us valuable insights into that
        debate also.
    • russh Re: Darwin in Poland 24.03.06, 01:28
      I agree with Yoric - a rather difficult and probably pointless debate, although
      I would ask one question of the creationists:

      Who, or what created God?
      • usenetposts Re: Darwin in Poland 24.03.06, 13:57
        russh napisał:

        > I agree with Yoric - a rather difficult and probably pointless debate,
        although
        > I would ask one question of the creationists:
        >
        > Who, or what created God?

        We don't know enough about the Nature of God in eternity to be able even to
        formulate that question within the constraints of space-time. The Bible speaks
        of God being uncreated, from which I understand that God has not an originator
        in the way we can understand it. God is outside time, so what questions of
        history look like in that context and how you can even frame historical
        questions and questions of chronological origin given that basis is as far from
        us to understand as it is far from us to understand what happens at a
        singularity in a black hole and beyond it, or what must be the experience of
        traveling at something approaching the speed of light, and then some.

        I think only in the next life will we be in a position to gain any insight
        whatsoever to that question.

        But if there is no next life in which this question would be answered, then why
        have we evolved in such a way as to be able to ask it, and spend our precious
        biological time thinking about it, instead of worrying about how to be the
        fittest and survive?

        Also, why don't any other species appear to ask these questions? If the
        questions are important and valid, then why don't other species ask them if
        they could have potentially evolved enough to do so from any of the life-forms.
        If the questions on the other hand are not valid, then why is it that we have
        evolved in such a way that we consider them - almost every human being alive is
        capable of considering them and has spent a good deal of time wondering about
        them? Is this only some kind of pointless aberration? That would make the human
        race in total pretty absurd in natural historic terms, but absurd in the eyes
        of what, if no other being is able to perceive absurdity?
    • regis7 Simple answer 10.04.06, 21:37
      Because 90% of society believes or accepts as currently most possible Darwin
      theory, including ateists,agnostics,catholics,priests etc. No one sane questions
      that here.

      polish catholics are not such fanatics as american heretics big_grin
      • ejmarkow Our universe: A molecule within a molecule? 12.04.06, 10:57
        This planet, the life forms that reside on it and beyond, may all be one
        microscopic fragment of matter existing within another infinitesimal substance.
        Our solar system or universe could be nothing more than a minute particle
        inside the cell of a larger mass, such as bacteria or a speck of dust.

        In fact, this theme has been discussed many times before, even in cinema. Do
        you all remember the scene between 'Pinto' and 'Jennings' in the film "Animal
        House" when they were smoking a joint?

        Pinto and Jennings conversation from "Animal House":

        "That means that...our whole solar system...could be, like...one tiny atom in
        the fingernail of some other giant being."

        "This is too much!"

        "That means...
        -one tiny atom in my fingernail could be--
        -Could be one little...
        tiny universe."

        smile

        Perhaps they had the right idea prior to discussing this subject...getting
        buzzed first!

        Regards,

        Eugene
      • usenetposts Either have faith or "science", don't cherrypick! 12.04.06, 15:57
        regis7 napisał:

        > Because 90% of society believes or accepts as currently most possible Darwin
        > theory, including ateists,agnostics,catholics,priests etc. No one sane
        question
        > s
        > that here.

        Well I must be insane, then.

        >
        > polish catholics are not such fanatics as american heretics big_grin

        So let me get this straight, when Catholics, who are such good mainstream
        scientists, say that they can pray to Mary and she hears them, which particular
        frequency are they broadcasting on, and which organ do they use to do it?
        • ianek70 Cherrypick! 12.04.06, 16:54
          usenetposts napisał:

          > So let me get this straight, when Catholics, who are such good mainstream
          > scientists, say that they can pray to Mary and she hears them, which
          particular
          >
          > frequency are they broadcasting on, and which organ do they use to do it?

          There's nothing wrong with deciding yourself what you believe in and what you
          don't. Only a fool (or possibly a buffoon) accepts an entire system of beliefs
          without thinking about it or questioning parts of it.
          The fact that people who pray to saints and dead popes are completely insane in
          the membrane is not in itself proof that everything they believe in is
          similarly ridiculous. You can't prove or disprove one myth with another one.
          Things evolve, this is a basic fact of genetics, but it does not disprove the
          existence of God.
          You can believe that the initial spark that created the simplest form of life
          came from one or other of the gods, and this doesn't mean you have to reject
          all rational scientific arguments.
          You can also believe that over billions of years simple chemicals became
          complicated chemicals, and they became even more complicated chemicals, and so
          on, but this does not mean you have to believe everything scientists say.
Pełna wersja