Darwin's Beagle ship replica plan [for his 200th birthday]

BBC News ^ | 19 July 2006 | Staff

[PatrickHenry]

Plans are being drawn up to build a £3.3m working replica of the boat that took Charles Darwin around the world at Milford Haven in Pembrokeshire.

Fundraising for the project, which would mark the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth in 2009, is under way.

The aim is to built a seaworthy vessel identical to the HMS Beagle on the outside, but with a modern interior.

Darwin, who showed how natural selection could explain evolution, sailed on the Beagle between 1831-36.

Sitting opposite him on the expedition was mate and surveyor John Lort Stokes.

One of Stokes' descendents, Pembrokeshire farmer David Lort Philips, together with commercial yacht master Peter McGrath, have founded the Beagle Project Pembrokeshire.

Mr McGrath said the ship would look identical to the original Beagle on the outside but would have a 21st century interior with diesel auxiliary engines and generators.

Charles Darwin developed his early theories on board the Beagle

He said he hoped the fished vessel would inspire the scientists of the future and be used by researchers and scientists from across the world.

"Externally it will be exactly the same but we want it to do some serious scientific work and you would not want the crew living like they did in the 18th Century," he said.

The pair have spent three years putting their plans together and aim to raise the money through private and institutional investors along with public subscription.

"With all the Darwin 200 celebrations there is not one big project to focus the attention on," added Mr McGrath.

"I know the effect a square rigger has on young people - it's a jaw dropping site.

"But we do not want this just to be a replica - we want it to have genuine scientific benefits.

"We have started the fundraising. Construction will take 14 months and it has to be finished by early 2009.

"She will be built in Milford Haven and it will be her home. But what we want to do when she is built is visit the significant sights in Darwin's and the Beagle's life."

Researchers believe the original remains of the 27m-long Navy brig, that was sold for scrap in 1870, are embedded in a marsh near Potton Island in Essex.

Darwin, who published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859, came fourth in a poll run by the BBC in 2002 to find the public's greatest Briton of all time.

His voyage on the Beagle allowed him to form the basis for much of his later work.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The bible is not science . . .

I don't recall saying as much. What I've been saying is that the biblical texts are not a source of superstition, mysticism, or wild philosophies. Quite the opposite, they are a reasonable explanation of where the functioning universe came from, and as such form a perfect foundation for science. Show me science that takes place without language and intelligent design, and then I'll have reason to believe intelligent design is unscientific. Until then it is you who seem to be full of yourself.

[Doc Savage]

He went down with the ship, rather like you! A fish, a bird and a gorilla walk into this bar.......................

[dmz]

I not only started the thread, but I write all the posts that purport to come from various "evos" as well as being several admin monitors.
_______________

LOL. I was wondering who was posting in my name. Good work, though, you're a lot smarter than I am - if that's not damning with faint praise, I don't know what it :)

[dmz]

I believe. It is not my place to approve or disapprove of Gods will. If I'm right by believing, eternal life. If I'm wrong, dust.
If your right, dust. If your wrong, an eternity in hell.
It just makes more sense to believe than not to believe.
____________

So your belief in Christ is really just hedging your bets for a decent afterlife? You're not a Christian because it is the right thing, but only expedient?

[Dimensio]

. It is not my place to approve or disapprove of Gods will. If I'm right by believing, eternal life. If I'm wrong, dust. If your right, dust. If your wrong, an eternity in hell.

False dichotomy fallacy. You may suffer for choosing the wrong deity.It just makes more sense to believe than not to believe.

This is also a false dichotomy fallacy. You are erroneously assuming that those who accept evolution universally "do not believe." This is not true. You also omit the possibility that there exists a deity who punishes unbelief less harshly (if at all) than "wrong" belief.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

A preponderance of physical evidence that concurs with what is written in the biblical texts, which evidence is chiefly found in the ubiquitous presence of organized matter that performs specific functions on both microscopic and macroscopic levels and is roundly supported by archaeology.

The same is true for any literary work, fiction or otherwise, which uses real world references. Remember the original Superman movie? They showed the San Andreas fault in that one...so...it really happened?

Not to mention the fact that no part of the biblical texts invites dismissal on the face of it.

So say you, but like you pointed out to someone else, you have a predisposition to accept, without question, the literal truth of the Bible, the consequences of your failure to do so being...you know.

It stands to reason that an almighty Creator, who takes a keen interest in His creation, would provide a means whereby He could make known His actions and intentions toward the one creature capable of science.

It DOES stand to reason, doesn't it? And I think we both agree that such a Creator, given their ability to, you know, make everything that exists, would be able to prove their existence to everyone on the planet WITHOUT A DOUBT. Arranging the stars to say "God was here", suspending Mount Everest above Tehran, anything like that. The fact that this hasn't happened means either He's not who you think he is, doesn't exist, or has no inclination to make Himself known. But this notion that he held regular conversations with people back in the day, but doesn't do that anymore (except an occassional appearance on tortillas or tree stumps), except of course, "in mysterious ways", isn't plausible to some people. But hey: THAT'S religion, and we're talking about science, right?

Science cannot happen with out language, and language cannot happen without intelligent design.

And the evidence shows that the intelligent critter which invented language evolved from a different critter.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The same is true for any literary work . . .

No it is not. Some literary works - Superman being a case in point - mix truth with fiction. In fact, the texts of evolutionism are more akin to Superman novels inasmuch as they propose fanciful renditions of history that has never been observed.

As for the remainder of your remarks, the natural world is simply a manifestation of the handiwork of God, and the biblical texts are His natural means of communicating the same more specifically, and in a manner more plausible than, say, suspending Mt. Everest above Tehran. Science has often observed anomalies. That is all a miracle is: a brief physical anomaly.

The evidence you suggest in favor of intelligent beings having historic derivation from non-intelligent beings is one of those Superman moments. Such fabrications come from people who care not to constrain themselves to what is written in the biblical texts. They certainly do not qualify as science in the strict sense.

As for God speaking directly to people in days past, there is nothing unnatural, superstitious, miraculous, or unscientific about speech, is there?

[2nsdammit]

"Show me science that takes place without language ..."

Now you are claiming that language comes from the Bible, too?

[ToryHeartland]

The bible and the biblical texts are not necessarily co extant. As usual, you get into problems due to an apparent incapacity to distinguish between similarities and equivalences.

This is a genuine query; I have read and then re-scanned this thread trying to find the difference between "the Bible" and "biblican texts," but remain confused.

The 'Bible' I have read repeatedly, and continue to read at intervals. By the 'Bible' I mean the books of the Old and New Testaments as regarded as canonical in the KJV, and additionally the Apocrypha.

What is included in 'biblical texts' in addition to these? Are you talking about various 'gnostic' gospels, such as Nag Hammadi, or others that I have overlooked or do not know.

I would genuinely like to understand what you mean by 'biblical texts' above and beyond the books of the KJV Bible; lacking that understanding, your argument is not coherent.

[SaveUS]

"The flush toilet is a denial of all that is holy!!! It is a device from the bowels of Hell. We must end this menace now!"

Now we're making sense! Thank you Pat. And no pun intended on the "bowels of Hell" comment I'm sure. LOL

[ToryHeartland]

*** Pimento Placemarker ***

[SaveUS]

"The others are fanciful fabrications perhaps drawn from the original account as handed down and preserved by the first humans"

Translation: It is all Allegory.

[Dimensio]

I take it as axiomatic that the biblical texts were authored by the Creator as a means to communicate the bigger picture of where all things come from and where they are headed.

Why do you make this assumption?

In fact they are quite the opposite, declaring these things in ordinary language even a child can understand.

This is not evidence of accuracy.

The biblical texts, like God Himself, are natural.

You again are assuming your conclusion.

The texts themselves are sufficient evidence of God's existence and intentions, just as your own words testify to some extent not only of your existence but also your intentions.

Circular reasoning. You are using the assumption that God wrote the Bible as evidence that God wrote the Bible.

Am I assuming my conclusion when I conclude from your words that you exist and have intentions?

Actually, yes. You demonstrate this assumption when referring to them as "my words".

But you are not convinced the biblical texts were authored by anyone other than a collection of human authors, who themselves were inspired by nothing other than their own imaginations as they reacted to the physical world about them.

Do you have reason that I should believe otherwise about the "biblical texts" and not any other religious text?

Actually, those kinds of authors are the ones who fabricate Darwinism with all its esoteric spillage. You're not alone in this assessment.

Please support this claim with evidence. Show that "Darwinism" is a "fabrication".

For personal reasons you've chosen to reject what the biblical texts say, and what they say of themselves.

The "personal reasons" to which you refer are the lack of evidence for the validity of the claims of the biblical texts.

Why did ordinary human authors arrive at a creation taking six days?

As has been previously explained to you, there exist multiple creation stories and "six days" is not a universal theme. The "six days" accounts that do exist were likely influenced by culture; a possibility is that a seven-day work week was already convention and the creation account written based upon that. An almighty God could just poof everything into existence in an instant. That makes for stronger drama, and is more consistent with an Almighty being.

I do not see how this supports your claims. At any rate, the texts say of themselves they were authored by the Creator Himself. I'll take their word for it.

Why do you accept such a claim of the "biblical texts" but not such a claim from any other religious text?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Because there is no unanimity in what constitutes the canonical texts I prefer to use the words "biblical texts" rather than the word "bible." Those portions of sacred writ known as homologoumena absolutely qualify as canonical. Most, if not all, bibles include other texts that are subject to question.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I have read and then re-scanned this thread trying to find the difference between "the Bible" and "biblical texts," but remain confused."

There is none, and he knows it. He's playing games. The texts that did not make it to the Bible are by definition not Biblical. It's all part of his attempts to redefine words to mean what he wants them to mean, because his arguments are so weak. I hope he doesn't think he is fooling anybody.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Why do you make this assumption?

For the same reason I am inclined to believe a telephone book contains accurate information. Whenever one accepts an axiom he thereby assumes a conclusion. Positive statements do the same thing. To say "most birds are flying creatures" is to assume a conclusion. So what?

I happen to find the evidence for an orderly planet to be compelling. I also find the capacity to apprehend and contemplate this planet as compelling evidence of intelligent design. Without information and language to express information, there would be no science, to be sure.

Both information and language may serve as evidence of intelligent design. Neither is mysterious, superstitious, supernatural, mystical, unscientific or even religious. The biblical texts bear out that it was with the tools of language (Word) that the heavens and the earth were brought into being, and are likewise sustained to this very moment. This is just part of the normal course the Creator has established. So are thought, emotions, and intentions, all of which bring themselves into science no matter how much the observer might wish otherwise.

Can you supply an example of science that does not make use of language?

[ToryHeartland]

Because there is no unanimity in what constitutes the canonical texts I prefer to use the words "biblical texts" rather than the word "bible." Those portions of sacred writ known as homologoumena absolutely qualify as canonical. Most, if not all, bibles include other texts that are subject to question.

OK, so let me play this back to see if I understand you aright:

You prefer to use the term "biblical texts" in preference to "the Bible" on the grounds that the former thereby encompases, not only the homologoumena, but additionally all controversial antilegomena, apocrypha, and indeed the pseudepigrapha. I don't wish to put words in your mouth here: is this your intended meaning? If not, I would be grateful for your clarification.

If this is your intended meaning, then several questions at once present themselves:

1. Are there any 'biblical textual' but 'non-homologoumenous' passages that have any bearing on the terms of reference in this thread? Or is your insistence on making the distinction here simply a matter of courtesy in the face of Christian denominational arguments?

2. Having conceded that there are controversies as to which 'biblical texts' are to be regarded as the revealed word of God -- in fact, your insistance on using the term 'biblical texts' rather than 'the Bible' markedly highlights this issue -- you are also conceding that all Christians must make a selection from among the body of "biblical texts" as to what is and is not to be regarded as the revealed word of God. In other words, it is Man who decides what is and is not the word of God? And how are individuals to make this selection? An appeal to reason? But that, surely, would be to "exalt their own reason over the plain biblical texts"--which is charge you level against Hitler and the Dali Lama in your post #198

3. I do not know -- nor does it matter to this discussion --which particular extracts from "biblical texts" you personally regard as legitimate and which you do not. I will note, however, that the effect of insisting so adamantly on such a fine distinction implies (though does not demonstrate, I grant) you may have a personal affinity for some portion of 'biblical texts' that stand outside the accepted homologoumena. Whether this is so or not does not matter to the real point here: either way, it appears you may have quarrels with other Christians far more fundamental than your quarrel with science.

4. Again, because your insistance on the distinction has so sharply highlighted it, I should like to invite (but not press) you to declare your own canon of authoritative texts from the body of 'biblical texts.' The invitation is made to extend an opportunity to dispel any possible 'suspicion' about your insistence on the distinction you have so ardently maintained, for some very questionably material indeed could be said to be encompassed by your own definition of 'biblical texts'

[Fester Chugabrew]

There is a sense in which human reason must be applied in determining which portions of the biblical texts are canonical. The portions are generally divided int entire books, although the end of Mark's Gospel has been questioned. In such cases the analogy of faith is brought to bear on the subject.

My point is that a typical bible is not necessarily coterminous with the biblical texts since certain of the books therein are antilogomena. IMO most bibles contain all of the biblical texts, with additional material that is edifying but subject to question. I simply prefer to use the words "biblical texts" as opposed to "bible," because the latter implies a circumscription that does not exist other than through the decisions of certain publishers.

[ToryHeartland]

I take it as axiomatic that the biblical texts were authored by the Creator as a means to communicate the bigger picture of where all things come from and where they are headed. They are not mystical or esoteric texts, nor do they invite superstition. In fact they are quite the opposite, declaring these things in ordinary language even a child can understand. The biblical texts, like God Himself, are natural.

Addendum to my previous post, arising from re-checking this thread.

Your assertion in this post about the nature of 'biblical texts' does in fact compel you , if you wish to have any credibility, to specify what you personally regard as canonical among 'biblical texts'; as it stands, your post here accepts all 'biblical texts' as canonical, and I doubt that is actually your meaning. Bear in mind that, under your defintion, 'biblical texts' could include the Nag Hammadi codices and -- for some denominations -- more recent 'revelations', such as those claimed for the 'Book of Mormon' by John Smith or, indeed, the Q'uranic verses of Islam. I very much doubt that is your meaning; what you intended to indicate is altogether opaque, in the absence of your clarification here.

[ToryHeartland]

There is a sense in which human reason must be applied in determining which portions of the biblical texts are canonical.

Thank you for granting this point.

IMO most bibles contain all of the biblical texts, with additional material that is edifying but subject to question.

This narrows considerably your singular definition of 'biblical texts,' which is a portion of the clarification I was seeking. The qualifying 'IMO' duly noted.