Today, February 12, is the birth date of Charles Darwin born in 1809. Although he was not the first to put forth the idea that the proliferation of life on earth was the product of evolution he amassed such a wealth of evidence that the idea could no longer be denied by those who examined the evidence. Modern medicine, geology, biology and all the other life sciences incorporate his findings.

In 2015 in the United States, Delaware's governor Jack Markell declared February 12 “Charles Darwin Day”, making Delaware the first state in the United States of America to formally mark the occasion. House Resolution 67, introduced by Representative Jim Hines in the United States House of Representatives on February 2, 2015 would designate February 12 as Darwin Day in the United States. It would recognize Darwin as "a worthy symbol on which to focus...a global celebration of science and humanity."

Let us celebrate February 12 as Darwin Day. If you are a citizen of Australia please contact your representative in parliament to introduce such a resolution. If you live in the United States of America please ask your representative in Congress to support Hines’ resolution.

Agreed Davidf.
Darwin was certainly a man before his time, and a very inquisitive mind in a world where many had even more closed minds than they do today.

I am surprised though that the strong, church minded people of the day didn't burn him at the stake. We know now what a genius he was.

Happy birthday, Mr. Darwin.

I purchased a copy of 'The Descent of Man' a few months back and it's been on my 'to read' list ever since because I've been distracted by other books. I think I might start reading it tonight.

But in celebrating the life and work of Darwin, it would be a shame if we forgot about Alfred Russell Wallace (born 8th January), a contemporary of Darwin's who independently came up with the theory of evolution by natural selection. When Darwin's ideas were first presented to the Linnaean Society, it was part of a joint presentation which also included Wallace's paper on the subject.

Sadly, history has been unjust to poor Wallace - hardly anybody has even heard of him, but everyone knows who Darwin is. If we're going to have a Darwin Day, it seems only fair that we also have a Wallace Day (and a Newton Day, Einstein Day, Lavoisier Day, Davy Day etc. - and we should make them all public holidays).

Damn! I thought this was the Bombing of Darwin Anniversay celebration.

But thats in a week https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Darwin

God deniers can celebrate a dead man. I prefer to celebrate the Resurrected Man. He did more good than all others put together. Darwin gave god deniers an excuse to deny the obvious. Darwin's theories have be proven hopelessly flawed but I suppose in many ways he is no different from any other dead idol.

//Darwin's theories have be proven hopelessly flawed//

When? And by whom?

Yes indeed David, Happy Darwin Day.

The insights he made, and regularised for modern consumption revolutionised the biological sciences and will always be remembered.

Rusty

Runner>>Darwin's theories have be proven hopelessly flawed but I suppose in many ways he is no different from any other dead idol.<<

Runner I respect your view, although evolution or adaptation to an environment and the subsequent changes or mutations in DNA is fact. Your opinion that there is a creator is as valid as the evolutionist’s theories. They do not know, I do not know, and you do not know how or why matter exists, and human consciousness is a whole other ball game.

All I can say about physics is the best they can come up with is that there was nothing, then in a microsecond there was everything............that is the quandary.

Thank You David for reminding us of Darwin's Birthday.

Many people do not accept the theory of evolution
because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Judaism, Christianity, and a number of other religions
teach that God is the sole guiding force in the universe.
According to the Bible: God is the Creator, Sustainer,
and ultimate End of all things. The wide variety variety
of forms of life is interpreted as a reflection of His
love and inspiration. The Bible also states that human
beings were created in the image of God and thus were
elevated above all other forms of life. Some people
find it difficult to reconcile these views with the
concept these views with the concept that life on earth
has evolved through natural processes.

Some people also feel that the evolutionary
theory conflicts
with the Bible's teachings regarding
the reality of sin and of redemption
from sin. They believe that sin tends to become
mere imperfection if humans are seen to be in the process
of evolving from a lower state and thus the Gospel of
redemption from the guilt of sin tends to lose meaning.

However, many people accept the basic principles of
evolution within the framework of their religious beliefs.
For example, some Biblical scholars interpret the story of
the Creation as a symbolic, rather than literal account of
the origin of human beings and other living things. They
do not find this symbolic interpretation incompatible
with the findings of evolutionary biologists.

For many people, the idea that human beings evolved from
lower forms of life does not diminish the uniqueness
of human capabilities and the accomplishments of human
civilizations.

Happy Birthday Charles Darwin!
Thank God for creating you!

Dear sonofgloin,

Darwin published no speculations or judgement on how life on earth originated. Darwin was a scientist and made observations and conclusions on those observations. Darwin also published no speculations or judgement on how matter originated.

Runner>>Darwin's theories have be proven hopelessly flawed but I suppose in many ways he is no different from any other dead idol.<<

I don't respect runner's views. They are baseless superstition. He makes statements like the above, but they are mere assertions not based on evidence. He doesn't state how Darwin's theories are flawed. Assertion is not proof.

The resurrected man already has two holidays devoted to his life. He is a semi-mythological deity. If God is omnipotent, all-knowing and benevolent why does he need a sidekick? Is Jesus to God as Robin is to Batman?

Darwin was a living man who made great contributions to knowledge. One definition of idol is - an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship. According to that definition Jesus is an idol.

Runner is partially right when stating that Darwin theory is known to be flawed. Although I quite confident in predicting that he's doesn't understand in what way modern scientists say that it is flawed. (Scientists today realise Darwinian evolution that it is not the complete picture, but the basic ideas of Darwin and other contemporaries were/are very important groundings for evolution).

For example, there is debate, which has been running for decades, about how much of a role natural selection v's genetic drift plays in evolution.

However, even though scientists debate the exact nature of evolution, what is certainly not in debate is that species have, do and will continue to evolve. What science also says is that this evolution doesn't necessarily require the need of god(s): randomness, provided ultimately by quantum theory, is more than adequate to provide the necessary "driving force".

(Note that science only says that life doesn't need/require god(s). However, science cannot ultimately say that some god(s) didn't do it, since a god could have set up the universe to produce life by evolution. Whether god(s) did create the universe and life is something which can't be rule out or in by science: it is purely a matter of personal belief.
None-the-less, science definitely does say that some of the stuff written in holy texts, such as the bible, make claims which are not supported by any evidence and in many cases demonstrable evidence overwhelming supports claims contrary to direct/littoral interpretations of these books-- ie: the bible/koran/etc. tell lies.)

sonofgloin,

I also don’t respect runner’s views. They’re rubbish and based on nothing but assertions. runner’s opinion that a god exists is not as valid as the theory of evolution. There is no reliable evidence for a god and yet there are mountains of evidence for evolution. How you can consider the two to be equally valid is baffling.

The big bang theory doesn’t assert that there was nothing and then suddenly there was everything. The furthest back physicists can go is to the point where all matter was condensed into an infinitely dense singularity. At that point all the laws of physics break down, so we may never know what, if anything, came before that. But that’s not evidence for the existence of a god, nor does it even suggest that a god may exist.

Dear thinkabit,

Of course you are right. Darwin is not the be-all and end-all nor is natural selection the only mechanism for evolution. One important mechanism for evolution is symbiosis. The eukaryote cell of which we mammals are composed is formed from the union of various prokaryote cells which apparently lived in symbiotic relationships before forming permanent unions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis tells about it.

Lichens are also an example of a symbiotic relationship which became permanent.

https://www.anbg.gov.au/lichen/what-is-lichen.html tells about it.

The wonder of nature is so great that we need not imagine gods to realise its grandeur.

To use the word, flawed, to describe Darwinian theory is flawed. The word, incomplete would be better. Darwin made no assertions he had no proof to support. It is amazing to me that he did all he did without a knowledge of a mechanism of inheritance. Mendel discovered the rules of genetic heredity, but Darwin did not know of Mendel's work.

Dear david f,

I'm all for a Darwin Day but where will it stop? What next: Einstein Day? Karl Marx Day? Steven Spielberg Day? ad infinitum. After all, there are only 365 days in a year.

Dear Mr Opinion,

Where will it stop? If one thinks that Karl Marx and Steven Spielberg are equivalent to Darwin it won't stop. I think one might make a good case for an Einstein and a Newton day. Those three tower over all other scientists. We have a Queen's Birthday which is not on the actual birthday of the queen. Her eminence resides only in the fact of her birth rather than in any accomplishment. If we need to get rid of holidays to accommodate a Darwin Day I would get rid of Queen's Birthday, Anzac Day, Easter and Christmas as official holidays. Anzac Day commemorates a military cockup, and those who wish to celebrate the religious days of Easter and Christmas can still do so in religious ceremonies invested with the solemnity of their belief.

Dear david f,

Getting rid of the Queen from the national calendar sounds a bit heartless. How about we replace her birthday holiday with Tony Abbott Day. Anyone for a $40K Rolex?

As Mr Opinion points out there are plenty of people who have changed the world, whether scientists or not. So perhaps instead of a "Darwin Day" we could have a "Celebrate Science Holiday". This would collectively recognize the impact that maths/science/engineering/technology has had on humanity. After all, the changes due (directly or indirectly) to maths and science have arguably had a greater impact on more people than any other man made cause.

Now that I'm musing about it: we could rename the other holidays to represent the overall impact of other various fields on mankind and Australian society: such as Easter Friday->"The Holiday for Religion", "Queens Birthday"->"Holiday for Politics and Structured Society", etc (ANZAC day, would still be essentially the same-- a holiday to remember those who served)
Additionally, if you were to do this and fundamentally change the names/reasons for holidays might as well space out the holidays more evenly throughout the year-- say holidays at roughly the first day of every second month, with an extra day (four day weekend) at 1/2 year and End of year.

AJ Philips>>I also don’t respect runner’s views. They’re rubbish and based on nothing but assertions. How you can consider the two to be equally valid is baffling.<<

AJ, what I said to Runner was “your opinion that there is a creator is as valid as the evolutionist’s theories”. Unless you can explain the genesis of matter, then you must leave open that it was created by design.
AJ, you then say “The furthest back physicists can go is to the point where all matter was condensed into an infinitely dense singularity. At that point all the laws of physics break down”.
Exactly, the physics break down, leaving open an alternative, something that does not obey the laws of physics, something ethereal perhaps.

As David F said “Darwin also published no speculations or judgement on how matter originated”.
That was probably a sane call, given heresy was a constant threat to scientists back then. It seems the answers to effect are there for us to see and understand, but the cause could be as ethereal as a creator.

sonofglioin,

I know that’s what you said to runner…
<<AJ, what I said to Runner was “your opinion that there is a creator is as valid as the evolutionist’s theories”. Unless you can explain the genesis of matter, then you must leave open that it was created by design.>>

Leaving open the possibility is very different to attributing an equal probability to each scenario. We already sorted this idiocy of yours out at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547&page=0

I thought, too, that david f had adequately explained to you that the origins of matter have nothing to do with evolution. Even if you could prove that the origins of the universe and life required a god, you still wouldn’t have disproven evolution.

Heck, you could disprove abiogenesis (you’ll have to look that one up, I presume, given how scientifically illiterate you are) but you still won’t have disproven evolution. Evolution is one of the most proven and well-established theories of science. You may as well be questioning gravity as the Intelligent Falling mob are.

Don’t tell me you’re one of those idiots too?

<<Exactly, the physics break down, leaving open an alternative, something that does not obey the laws of physics, something ethereal perhaps.>>

Perhaps. You just never know, do you? But it still doesn’t suggest that a god may exist.

<<It seems the answers to effect are there for us to see and understand, but the cause could be as ethereal as a creator.>>

The cause could also be the fairies that live at the bottom of my garden. The evidence for a god is just as reliable as that so I am offended that you failed to include my garden-dwelling pixies in your list of possibilities.

By trying to shoehorn a god into the unknowns of the universe, you only demonstrate yourself to be an idiot with very little in the way of brain matter. Until you find some evidence for your magic man, your theory is no better than that of mine which consists of universe-creating pixies that live that the bottom of my garden,

They’re invisible, of course.

How about Big Bang Day? After all we wouldn't be here if the Big Bang hadn't created all of that hydrogen. We just wouldn't be the stuff of stars.

So the guy discovered how our bodies came to be - what's the big deal?

Facts are facts - not a reason to celebrate.

Celebrate instead those who discover how to overcome greed, lust, anger, malice, vanity, envy, dullness, fear and selfishness.
Celebrate those who discover how to attain love, compassion, courage, wisdom, steadfastness, self-control, contentment and inner peace.

Dear Yuyutsu,

What Darwin did is a very big deal. By acquainting us with our origins we can understand better what we are and why we do what we do. We can learn about the origins of our greed, lust, anger, malice, vanity, envy, dullness, fear and selfishness. The sciences and the arts give us the tools to discover how to attain love, compassion, courage, wisdom, steadfastness, self-control, contentment and inner peace.

The scientific method provides us not only with facts but a way to attack problems. We look at the evidence. By observation and experiment we make conclusions. If our goal is to make a better life we can get there by reason more reliably than by the mumbojumbo of religion.

Religion can lead us astray. We create gods and other mumbojumbo. We are encouraged to look down on those who subscribe to a different mumbojumbo. Some wise people have realised the folly of religion.

James Madison (1751–1836), the fourth president of the US, wrote: “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.”

Science can also be wrong, but there is a corrective. The scientific method incorporates the idea of the reproducibility of results. A scientific theory may be questioned by observation and experiment and proven false. There is no corrective for the mumbojumbo of religion. Doubt is heresy and condemned.

The arts can give us insights into our frailties. A good work of fiction can guide us to realise why we do what we do. When I was a teenager, “The Way of All Flesh” by Samuel Butler told me a lot about me.

One of the themes in philosophy is the question of a good life and how to lead it. Darwin devoted his life to expanding human knowledge. He led a very good life.

Darwin led a good life, but does his work offer a moral guide?

http://www1.umn.edu/ships/evolutionofmorality/context.htm deals with that question.

Each one of us can try to overcome our flaws. Self-knowledge gained through the sciences and the arts gives us tools for the task.

Dear david f, I like your comment

'Each one of us can try to overcome our flaws. Self-knowledge gained through the sciences and the arts gives us tools for the task.'

Wouldn't it be nice if most of the politicians and business leaders had a knowledge of the sciences and arts. Maybe there would be a lot less Stuart Roberts in the world.

Anyone for a free $40K Rolex?

AJ Philips>>Leaving open the possibility is very different to attributing an equal probability to each scenario. We already sorted this idiocy of yours out at<<

Yes AJ, I recall that thread, it went long and hard did it not?

AJ>>I thought, too, that david f had adequately explained to you that the origins of matter have nothing to do with evolution.<<

Well AJ, for one as astute and imperious on the origins of matter your myopic mania for witch hunts deceives your eye as it scrolls down the text of your interlocutor. What I said regarding evolution was, “Runner I respect your view, although evolution or adaptation to an environment and the subsequent changes or mutations in DNA is fact”.

AJ>>Heck, you could disprove abiogenesis (you’ll have to look that one up, I presume, given how scientifically illiterate you are)<<

Once again AJ, you formulate a myopic synopsis to feed your intellectual insecurity. I never stated that we are anything but the consequence of matter. I never suggested that a “god” gave dust life by his or her breath.

AJ>> Perhaps. You just never know, do you? But it still doesn’t suggest that a god may exist.<<

You are certainly a simple soul AJ running down a single track laid by your limited understanding and others input.......your intellectual insecurity and your need for extolment causes me to laugh.

AJ>> By trying to shoehorn a god into the unknowns of the universe, you only demonstrate yourself to be an idiot with very little in the way of brain matter.<<

Is that it AJ, "an idiot". Do you feel intellectually placated now you have stooped to insults sport, should I send you some rotten tomatoes to throw at the poor wretch in the stocks.............lolololololol

David f>> Religion can lead us astray. We create gods and other mumbojumbo. We are encouraged to look down on those who subscribe to a different mumbojumbo. Some wise people have realised the folly of religion.<<

David, I never use the term “god” in association with life. Given our cumulative knowledge stops at the singularity of the big bang, a term we use for a one off occurrence that we do not understand, I find it naive to discount anything.

So “wise” people have realized the folly of religion David.......have they? That’s a simplistic statement given your resource is the accumulated knowledge of mankind thus far. Let me remind you of other folly’s that the majority of intellectuals have embraced down the ages.

The discovery of Vulcan
The expanding earth
The phlogiston theory
Luminiferous aether
The blank state theory
Einstein’s static Universe
Fleischmann and Pons cold theory
Emission theory of vision
Laws of refraction
Contact tension
Emitter theory
Classical elements
Rutherford model
Electron cloud

David, I could go on and on and on..........when it comes to knowledge our gratest tool is to be unsure of what we are sure of.
Carl Marx described religion as the opium of the masses, and he was right. Organized religion has always been a tool to empower the few and control the majority. But at its genesis religion and ritual have been a social tool to curb the wilfulness of mankind’s character for the greater good of the society it encompasses.

Re the astute “mumbojumbo” comment, like AJ, should I send you some rotten tomatoes to throw at your detractors?

Dear sonofgloin,

When you wrote, "Runner I respect your view, although evolution or adaptation to an environment and the subsequent changes or mutations in DNA is fact." you were being kind to runner.

Perhaps I could learn from you and also be kinder. We are all human and, in the passion of the moment, are not always kind.

Dear sonofgloin,

You wrote:

“So “wise” people have realized the folly of religion David.......have they? That’s a simplistic statement given your resource is the accumulated knowledge of mankind thus far. Let me remind you of other folly’s that the majority of intellectuals have embraced down the ages.

The discovery of Vulcan
The expanding earth
The phlogiston theory
Luminiferous aether
The blank state theory
Einstein’s static Universe
Fleischmann and Pons cold theory
Emission theory of vision
Laws of refraction
Contact tension
Emitter theory
Classical elements
Rutherford model
Electron cloud”

I repeat my remark from a previous post.

“Science can also be wrong, but there is a corrective. The scientific method incorporates the idea of the reproducibility of results. A scientific theory may be questioned by observation and experiment and proven false. There is no corrective for the mumbojumbo of religion. Doubt is heresy and condemned.”

David F>> There is no corrective for the mumbojumbo of religion. Doubt is heresy and condemned.”<<

Thanks for your reply David, we are not poles apart. The only fact I can give you about the scriptures of any faith is that they were penned by the hand of man. They have never been unequivocal to me.

Hi DAVID F...

So you'd rid us of ANZAC Day would you, because it was a 'military cock-up' was what you said? From my understanding it's quite true most of the strategic and tactical planning associated with the attack on the Gallipoli peninsula, proved to be poorly planned, resulting in thousands of unnecessary deaths on both sides.

The importance of the day itself (25th April, each and every year) symbolises every war, action, or campaign Australia has been involved, where casualties had been sustained, therefore should be retained for that reason alone, if for no other. Nothing whatsoever to do with Charles DARWIN either DAVID F ?

Dear sonofgloin,

It's Karl Marx not Carl Marx. In Zabriskie Point it was Carl Marx but in real life it was Karl Marx.

There are some errors people will let pass. But definitely not that of thinking that Marx's christian name is Carl. That tells everyone who is trained in sociology, history and anthropology that you don't know who he was and that your knowledge of his works and theories was picked up from listening to conversations by people who probably know even less about Marx than you do.

I guess you probably also think that Karl Marx had three brothers called Groucho, Chico and Zeppo.

Dear o sung wu,

Australians have been involved in many wars. Some of the speeches made on ANZAC Day seem to me to be encouraging Australians to have the same spirit as the ANZACs and to be as ready to go to war if called upon. I would rather the remembrance of Australia’s wars be a day of reflection and questioning.

Some questions:

How many of those wars could have been avoided?

What could have been done to avoid those wars?

What did each war gain?

What did each war cost?

What is Australia doing to prevent future wars?

We know some things that can be done:

The prime minister of Australia can put the country into war by his or her decision alone. This is not right. Unless the country is attacked Australian troops should only be put in action with a parliamentary debate and possibly a referendum.

We can promote critical thinking in our schools and train people to recognise propaganda that pushes people into war.

We know that wars can come because too many people are fighting over too few resources. We can support a more equitable sharing of the world’s resources and promote efforts to control population growth.

We can support international organisations set up to settle conflicts without resort to arms.

We can make Australian arms sales public and no longer commercial-in-confidence. As military advisor to Senator Woodley I have written legislation to that effect. Since Woodley was an Australian Democrat the legislation was not passed, but it was read in parliament.

https://www.caat.org.uk/issues/arms-fairs tells about the arms fairs.

“Arms Fairs ... promote weapons sales by giving arms dealers the chance to meet and greet military delegations, government officials, other arms companies and a host of individual visitors.

Unsurprisingly, the guest lists for arms fairs frequently include regimes who abuse human rights, and countries actively involved in armed conflicts.”

We can oppose the arms fairs.

My father was a soldier in WW1. I was a soldier in WW2. Neither of my sons have been soldiers. I hope none of my descendants will fight in any war.

Dear david f,

The ways things are going in the Middle East you may not have to wait too much longer for a WW3.

Dear David,

Years ago I read what must be, along with accounts of the holocaust and life in the Soviet Union under Stalin, one of the most depressing books - "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. That book attempts to describe how we, even when we seem to act morally, are nothing but helpless puppets at the hands of our tyrannical genes which only care for themselves.

However, Darwin said nothing, good or bad, about our origins - he only researched and wrote about the origins of our bodies. Similarly, self-knowledge cannot be gained by science, only the knowledge of our bodies. If we are to agree that we have no influence over our bodies which are controlled exclusively by our genes and the blind forces of physics, then what the hell are we doing in these bodies? why do we continue to identify ourselves with those bodies and fail to forsake them? If that's indeed the case and we have no say, yet remain identified, then we have no right to hide behind our genes but are guilty and are to blame for all the evils launched by them.

I deliberately avoided mentioning religion, knowing well of your tendency to accept all sorts of poor behaviours by impostors who claim to be religious as if that was religion itself, subsequently attacking that straw man. You seem to have done so again despite me doing my best to avoid that track.

Runner does not want to celebrate the life of Charles Darwin on Feb 12th but will go along with celebrating the life on St Valentine on Feb 14th. You all recall the life of that wonderful 3rd century Roman, and the monumental contribution he made to the world, makes Darwin's contribution pale into insignificance. That is assuming Valentine actually existed at all.

If you want to celebrate the lives and times of mostly mythical nobody's just get a copy of the Catholic Church's 'General Roman Calendar' People like Runner would much prefer to celebrate the lives of such luminaries as St Blindif and St Yeshak and don't forget that man of men the great one himself St Mungo, you do remember St Mungo? Don't you,

Runner will be along soon with an updated list, there certainly is no shortage.

Hi (again) DAVID F...

I couldn't agree with you more when you say '...I would rather the remembrance of Australia's wars be a day of reflection and questioning...'? I also recognise that you too were a soldier in WW2, so you thoroughly understand the futility of fighting wars. And I'm a veteran as well.

Both of us agree wars are failures, when nations can no longer communicate their grievances, therefore they resort to armed conflict to solve that, which seemingly cannot be solved by discussion and mutual detente. Nevertheless ANZAC day is just such a day for all Australians to come together and, to reflect and question the overall failure and uselessness in fighting a war - there are absolutely no winners in any armed conflict. Just insurmountable material destruction, and indeterminable numbers of dead, and broken men and women.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I have read your post.

//If you want to celebrate the lives and times of mostly mythical nobody's just get a copy of the Catholic Church's 'General Roman Calendar' People like Runner would much prefer to celebrate the lives of such luminaries as St Blindif and St Yeshak and don't forget that man of men the great one himself St Mungo//

Runner is a proddie. Proddies are traditionally not really into venerating saints, just invisible sky fairies.

I think if runner was to pick a date to celebrate the life of somebody important and noteworthy and definitely real, he'd probably go for 4th of Januray - the birthday of Bishop James Ussher, that brilliant scholar who calculated by carefully studying the bible that the date of creation was about 18:00, 22nd of October 4004 B.C.

I imagine that this is the sort of 'science' that runner approves of. Presumably he also thinks that the huge mountains of evidence indicating a flourishing civilisation in Egypt well before that date is God's little joke that the archaeologists haven't got yet.

I love young earth creationism. John Cleese himself couldn't write such hilarious material.

Mr Opnion>> It's Karl Marx not Carl Marx. In Zabriskie Point it was Carl Marx but in real life it was Karl Marx.
There are some errors people will let pass. But definitely not that of thinking that Marx's christian name is Carl. That tells everyone who is trained in sociology, history and anthropology that you don't know who he was and that your knowledge of his works and theories was picked up from listening to conversations by people who probably know even less about Marx than you do.
I guess you probably also think that Karl Marx had three brothers called Groucho, Chico and Zeppo.<<

Really Mr O, what a petty point to expand on, whether I know a paragraph, or whether I know a chapter, I have more than enough to deal with your insecure intellect.................lolololol

I will give you a Groucho Marx quote that is in its insightfulness into the human character at the same time eloquent and pragmatic........”Hey you big bully, leave that little bully alone”........lolololol

Poor old sonofgloin,

It's too late to make amends now that you've let the cat out of the bag. You have demonstrated that you don't know anything about Karl 'with a K' Marx.

Happy Carl Marx Day sonofgloin.

Mr Opinion...I take it you did not appreciate the big bully, little bully quote? It was as insightful as any thing Carl wrote......lolololol

'I love young earth creationism. John Cleese himself couldn't write such hilarious material.'

yea Toni and I love the 'rational' science that is blind to design, blind to a Lawmaker, blind to order, blind to morality (except their own warped morality) and call it science. Such a brillant mind you have to accept that a big bang gave us all these things. Hold your heas up high brilliant scholar.

btw have they found the transitional fossil yet or are they on fraud 5005. Yep faith in God is irrational until you hear the foolish garbage you spit out in the name of 'science'.

Hi Toni,

Jesus, Joseph and Mary, Runner is a PROTESTANT! Well that explains a lot. When I was just a wee Catholic boy attending Catholic school in the early 60's, one thing Sister Mary taught us was the only thing worse than an heathen and an atheists, was a PROTESTANT! and Sister Mary should know, she had it on good authority from Father O'Flaherty, who had got it from the Holy Father himself when he had visited the Vatican in 1952!
The mere mention of a PROTESTANT would get Sister Mary's Irish temper a blaze, blood boiling, she would let forth with howls of damnation in the name of St Patrick on those sinful PROTESTANTS, particularly those Irish ones, Now Sister Mary was a very reasonable nun when it came to such matters, how could she be wrong?

//Such a brillant mind you have to accept that a big bang gave us all these things.//

Did I say the Big Bang gave us any of those things? You're lying again, runner. Doesn't your God frown on that sort of thing?

All I said was that the idea that the Earth is only 6,000 years old is such a load of claptrap that it is hilarious.

//have they found the transitional fossil yet//

The transitional fossil? They've found lots, runner. The Piltdown Man hoax does not make Runcaria, Aphistium or Archaeopteryx (just to give few examples) fossils fraudulent. That's also so ridiculous as to be amusing.

'Did I say the Big Bang gave us any of those things? '

Oh I see Toni happy to mock the obvious and have no answers of your own knowing how riculous they are.

'The transitional fossil? They've found lots, runner.' Yeah sure mr omniscience. Pathetic attempt. As usual no answers just warped narrative. I am happy to amuse you as you certainly are full of hot air.

//As usual no answers just warped narrative.//

I gave you three examples, runner. Unfortunately I spelt one of them wrong, which doesn't help when trying to google them. My bad. Here's links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphistium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runcaria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

Fossils aren't any sort of narrative, runner. You can pick the things up and hold them. They're about as real as it gets.

'Fossils aren't any sort of narrative, runner. You can pick the things up and hold them. They're about as real as it gets.'

Yeah you show Toni how desperate you are by classing these as evidence of a transitional form. As I said your narrative might be confirmed but science trashed. You must have to shut your eyes in denial every day when looking at creation. The apostle was so right to say that those denying the obvious will come up with all sorts of foolishness. You certainly prove that. Go back and look for a fossil that proves your point Toni not some pathetic story. Still waiting for over a hundred years. What a joke.

//Yeah you show Toni how desperate you are by classing these as evidence of a transitional form.//

I don't class them as evidence of 'a transitional form'. You seem to be having trouble with plurals. I class them as evidence of transitional forms. Note the use of the letter 's' to indicate the plural case.

Examples:

One fossil; many fossils.
One book; many books.
One hat, many hats.

It isn't always that simple, of course - the plural of cannon is cannon, not cannons. English is a funny language.

But typically, adding an 's' to the end of noun indicates a plural noun. So it doesn't doesn't make much grammatical sense to try and reduce three distinct and very different fossilised species to a single transitional form.

//You must have to shut your eyes in denial every day//

Nah, I'd wear goggles if I was in denial - but I wouldn't swim there anyway because of the crocodiles, and because it's in Egypt and that's an awful long way to travel for a dip in the river.

//The apostle was so right to say that those denying the obvious will come up with all sorts of foolishness.//

Once again, you seem to be having trouble with plurals: in my Bible, there were at least eleven more apostles than 'the apostle'. Which one do you mean? And what is the book, chapter and verse so I can check that you're not just lying, as you are so often wont to do.

//Go back and look for a fossil that proves your point//

I already have. And I found heaps. I gave you three examples, but there are a lot more than that.

Why don't you put up some evidence that proves your point? Please note that the book of Genesis isn't a scientific paper and that Bishop Ussher's chronology has been soundly debunked by historians as well as scientists.

//Still waiting for over a hundred years.//

The first fossilised Archaeopteryx skeleton was found 155 years ago, runner.

Apparently maths isn't your strong suit either.

I take it Toni that Amphistium wasn't one of the fish that grew legs, came out of the water but went back in because it wasn 't evolved enough. My maths might not be good but your rational is stupidity to the max. I suggest you read Romans 1 to see where your stupidity comes from.

Agree, Toni, and I'd add Carl Johansson, pioneer metrologist and M. de Vernier who invented the scale system used on Vernier callipers, micrometers and other instruments.

Without their work, particularly that of Johansson, modern engineering precision would have been impossible.

Paul,

Pity that you didn't have the luck to attend a Marist school as I had.
There we were taught to question everything and a Protestant, and a Presbyterian at that, was held up to us as an example of a Christian man who stuck to his principles.

This was Eric Liddell, who was so well portrayed in "Chariots of Fire" and "....In his last letter to his wife, written on the day he died, Liddell wrote of suffering a nervous breakdown due to overwork. He actually had an inoperable brain tumour; overwork and malnourishment may have hastened his death. Liddell died on 21 February 1945, five months before liberation [he was in a Japanese internment camp]. Langdon Gilkey later wrote, "The entire camp, especially its youth, was stunned for days, so great was the vacuum that Eric's death had left." According to a fellow missionary, Liddell's last words were, "It's complete surrender", in reference to how he had given his life to God."

Is Mise I did have such "luck" some years later, and in some cases with the "brothers" compared to the "sisters" it was a matter of out of the fat and into the fire.
A story: In 2nd year high school the 'Cadet Unit' run by a "brother" (who later proved to be a pedophile), came around looking for "volunteers". I, being a pacifists, and one other declined brothers generous invitation to join his kids army. Well the bloke made my life hell from there on in with physical assaults through caneings and mental torture, bailed me up against a wall once, and accused me of being a "Nancy Boy". This degenerate was ably assisted by other religious zealots of the brotherhood.
I am glad you attended a fine Marist School where you were taught to question everything and a Protestant, and a Presbyterian at that, was held up to us as an example of a Christian man who stuck to his principles. Can't say the say for many Marist Brothers I met, but we all have different experiences in life.