What Do I Do If I Get This Job?
Jobs & Education1 min ago
Darwin’S Doubt
89 Answers
Watching Steve Backshall's Extreme Mountain Challenge last night, he trapped a large wasp. He explained that this particular variety of wasp stings spiders, paralysing them, and then proceeds to lay its eggs inside the paralysed body. The hatchlings eat the spider from the inside – avoiding the vital organs in order to keep the spider alive - hence a source of fresh food is guaranteed. He said that Darwin’s discovery of this wasp and this process caused him to doubt the existence of a beneficent God.
Food for thought?
Food for thought?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Darwin's relationship with religion was difficult.
Darwin's father was a vicar, and Darwin's wife was a very religious woman.
Also he lived in a time when the teaching of the bible (god created the earth in 7 days, and all the animals in it) was believed as the actual truth.
So he did have a huge moral dilemma when he started to work on his "evolution" and "natural section" theories.
When he did his long trip on the Beagle he found dinosaur bones in Argentina but was reluctant to talk about them as they would indicate that if god DID make species of animals he also got rid of them, but that did not sit right with the religious theory at the time.
In fact he delayed publishing his work (his famous book) for about 20 years (1838 to 1858) for fear of the ridicule that would be heaped on him and the pain it would bring to his wife (due to her religious feelings).
It was only when another person was going to publish a similar book to the one he had planned (and thus steal his thunder) that he took his manuscript out the drawer (after 20 years) and got it published.
Of course after the book was published he still go ridiculed, and there is the famous cartoon of Darwin looking like an ape (as he said we may have descended from apes).
It is amazing how far we have moved in in the last 150 years since Darwin's book was first published. Most people now know his theories are true (apart from a few religious zealots) and few people believe the earth WAS created in 7 days.
Darwin's father was a vicar, and Darwin's wife was a very religious woman.
Also he lived in a time when the teaching of the bible (god created the earth in 7 days, and all the animals in it) was believed as the actual truth.
So he did have a huge moral dilemma when he started to work on his "evolution" and "natural section" theories.
When he did his long trip on the Beagle he found dinosaur bones in Argentina but was reluctant to talk about them as they would indicate that if god DID make species of animals he also got rid of them, but that did not sit right with the religious theory at the time.
In fact he delayed publishing his work (his famous book) for about 20 years (1838 to 1858) for fear of the ridicule that would be heaped on him and the pain it would bring to his wife (due to her religious feelings).
It was only when another person was going to publish a similar book to the one he had planned (and thus steal his thunder) that he took his manuscript out the drawer (after 20 years) and got it published.
Of course after the book was published he still go ridiculed, and there is the famous cartoon of Darwin looking like an ape (as he said we may have descended from apes).
It is amazing how far we have moved in in the last 150 years since Darwin's book was first published. Most people now know his theories are true (apart from a few religious zealots) and few people believe the earth WAS created in 7 days.
//...and few people believe the earth WAS created in 7 days. //
that may be true VHG, but there are some that do, who are in rather powerful positions - like this lot....
https:/
that may be true VHG, but there are some that do, who are in rather powerful positions - like this lot....
https:/
-- answer removed --
Looks to me like that calculation is wrong on dimensional grounds, mibn... you have to multiply by days in a year, not divide by them, or else the answer you get is in days^(-1).
* * *
There was a brief article in the Times the other day about another gruesome symbiotic relationship, between some species of bird and alligator. The birds nest near the alligators, offering ample protection from other predators. And, in return, the birds effectively pay "blood money", with any surplus chicks being thrown to the ground as food for the gators. How nice.
* * *
There was a brief article in the Times the other day about another gruesome symbiotic relationship, between some species of bird and alligator. The birds nest near the alligators, offering ample protection from other predators. And, in return, the birds effectively pay "blood money", with any surplus chicks being thrown to the ground as food for the gators. How nice.
Why assume that's a God year? Or any kind of useful number for that matter. It's a dimensionless ratio. 6000 years is, after all, the amount of time that (reported to have) passed since Adam and Eve left Eden and is therefore anyway still measured in standard human units.
Seems to me that the number you want is probably (4.543*10^9-6000)/6, which would give the average number of years that passed per "day" God took to create the world assuming that at 12.00:01am on day 1 God created the Earth. Hence my version of "doing the maths" would suggest that a God-day is 750million-odd earth years.
But enough of this pedantry.
Seems to me that the number you want is probably (4.543*10^9-6000)/6, which would give the average number of years that passed per "day" God took to create the world assuming that at 12.00:01am on day 1 God created the Earth. Hence my version of "doing the maths" would suggest that a God-day is 750million-odd earth years.
But enough of this pedantry.
Sorry, what? Firstly, mibn, I was anyway only having a bit of fun, although granted that can be lost in the internet ether. But the remainder is down to interpretation at least. Assuming a literal interpretation of the Bible then the world is 6,000 years old or so, but measured in our definition of years not God's. In which case the question "how long is a God day" is surely defined by what precedes the 6,000 years between what actually happened and what "literally" happened? Why is that wrong?
There is no way that I can accept that the 2,000-odd years answer makes any kind of sense at all. Partly that's because the whole thing is a stupid question anyway. But don't "get your facts straight" me, please. Technically, we're both talking utter billhooks anyway.
There is no way that I can accept that the 2,000-odd years answer makes any kind of sense at all. Partly that's because the whole thing is a stupid question anyway. But don't "get your facts straight" me, please. Technically, we're both talking utter billhooks anyway.
