No, "The Most Credibility Challenged Myth Ever Told"
See tag line
And we dredged up an article championing Darwinian codswollop from 2008 today for what reason again, Jimbo?
FReegards!
Posted on 02/16/2015 9:01:33 AM PST by JimSEA
If you think you understand it, you don't know nearly enough about it
It will soon be 200 years since the birth of Charles Darwin and 150 years since the publication of On the Origin of Species, arguably the most important book ever written. In it, Darwin outlined an idea that many still find shocking - that all life on Earth, including human life, evolved through natural selection.
Darwin presented compelling evidence for evolution in On the Origin and, since his time, the case has become overwhelming. Countless fossil discoveries allow us to trace the evolution of today's organisms from earlier forms. DNA sequencing has confirmed beyond any doubt that all living creatures share a common origin. Innumerable examples of evolution in action can be seen all around us, from the pollution-matching peppered moth to fast-changing viruses such as HIV and H5N1 bird flu. Evolution is as firmly established a scientific fact as the roundness of the Earth.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
For those who are interested in the actual controversy, this is a source for the scientists evidence, argument and positions. I'm sorry that this is a 2008 article but the status of the debate is little changed.
If your mind is irrevocably made up there is no need for you to post, this article is merely a resource as to what one side has to say and how the defend their positions and, importantly, what they are actually saying as opposed to the straw man arguments that are usually presented.
Is there a God?
Either God caused the Big Bang, God was surprised by the Big Bang, God(s) sprang forth from the Big Bang, or there is no God.
“The most important book ever written?”
Sorry, Darwin was a reasonably bright fellow, but one could practice biology from now until eternity without ever knowing about evolution. We aren’t talking rocket science here.
And - one’s background with evolution has nothing to do with the obvious goal of this article, which is adherence to political correctness.
It is interesting that the MSM appears to have decided that one’s opinions on biological questions exceed their ability do demonstrate simple moral, intelligence, or leadership qualities. If one wants to see a complete idiot, just google Barack Obama.
If you want important authors in science, try Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, etc.
I only scanned the article, but I didn’t see any reference to the biggest myth of all, the claim that evolution explains the origin of life itself. Both sides of the argument constantly misrepresent evolution in that area.
No, "The Most Credibility Challenged Myth Ever Told"
See tag line
And we dredged up an article championing Darwinian codswollop from 2008 today for what reason again, Jimbo?
FReegards!
With debunked tripe such as this, who could take this article seriously?
Darwin never claimed to know the Irgun of life, only origin of species.
Hence the name of his book.
Heck, take homo sapiens i.e. us. You read about our species and the text always says about 250,000 years ago homo sapiens "suddenly appear". Evolution is the ultimate analog system. Changes should be gradual, in most cases, but definitely not step function. Well the term "suddenly appears" implies a step function. Where are the missing links? One species cannot begat another over nite. There should be cross over types that don't fit any category.
If you study probability and statistics the whole primordial soup thing is just ridiculous.
They wanted one to subscribe to read more about the peppered moths. You remember the peppered moths. They were kind of dead and stuck on the trees by the scientist photographing proof that the living moths had evolved to match the darkness of their polluted world. And I am so happy that the scientist have now figured out how new information is encoded into DNA/RNA. Due to recent scientific discoveries there can no longer be found even one actual Biblical Scientist. We all know that using the Bible for a model or obtaining our life views from a literal interpretation of that old book will keep a scientist from making any discovery or even working effectively in any modern lab. That is my story and I am sticking too it.
Me to, or is that two?
800 years ago Rabbi Nachmanides deduced the Big Bang from studying the Torah. He said that before the universe there was nothing. Suddenly the entire creation appeared as a tiny speck, the size of a mustard seed. In that speck was all the raw material that would be used for making everything else. Nachmanides describes the substance of the speck as “dak me’od, ein bo mamash” - very thin, no substance to it. As this speck expanded this substance turned into matter as we know it.
Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. Evolution deals with life coming from life. Abiogenesis is about life coming from organic chemicals - not life.
I have to agree with DaCoyote’s comments on this article and 24 links therein.
“And - one’s background with evolution has nothing to do with the obvious goal of this article, which is adherence to political correctness.”
The intro once again presents the peppered moth as an example of evolution, which it is not.
This wasn’t a scientific article but a type of political polemic that uses ostensible evolutionary or other biological science.
Honest evolutionists will admit that their theory of origins involves greater miracles than special creation. To believe that the most “simple” stupendously complex single-celled organism could’ve been formed via random processes is beyond laughable.
Evolutionists need to throw some lifeless chemicals together and form life, then get back with me.
The article itself is pure tripe, written almost entirely using ad hominem.
In reality, both sides of the argument are faith-based. I choose faith in God.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
“With debunked tripe such as this, who could take this article seriously?”
Yes.
It was quite disappointing overall.
I’ve found the New Scientist to not be a science magazine as much as a political magazine.
Even the name is based on a political premise.
I especially like that it addressed the "survival of the fittest" myth.
Ignorant people have bought hook, line, and sinker the "survival of the most ruthless" meme. They wrongly think Darwinism negates the teachings of Christianity. They wrongly think evolution rewards lack of mercy and charity because they wrongly buy into the badly paraphrased "survival of the fittest" tagline invented by philosopher Herbert Spencer -- the words belong to Spencer, NOT Darwin. That stupid Spencer, with his stupid "survival of the fittest" erroneous summation, has caused untold strife and ugliness.
The ability to adapt to a changed or changing environment is what aided in survival, according to Darwin's discoveries. A better way to say it would be "adapt or perish" -- Spencer's "survival of the fittest" is a destructive lie and misrepresentation.
IMO, evolution IS Intelligent Design. Furthermore, ADAPT OR PERISH holds entirely with God and Christianity -- human societies either ADAPT to God's laws and survive, or they defy God's laws and PERISH. America right now is defying the laws of God, and it is on the way to perishing. America must ADAPT to God's laws again if it wants to survive.
Evolutionary theory doesn't challenge God. It challenges MEN.
A lot of postings today were bashing and misrepresenting the theory of evolution as it is generally understood and practiced today. Darwin got the ball rolling but if he hadn’t, Wallace and others were waiting in the wings. All this was the result of naturalism, seeking natural explanations for natural observations. Today, Darwin is a historical figure who came up with a useful idea. There are observations and applications which have long ago left Darwin in the dust.
Actually many of Darwins principles have been proven false. The atmosphere for Millers trigger point of life has been proven to be inaccurate which is a cornerstone of evolution. I do believe in parts of the evolution process, but do not go with the full evolution of how life begins. Many scientists including Harvard and MIT have found that intelligent design , a creator is the most likely scenario for life. I believe we will continue to see more and more evidence as history evolves. Can find some on internet and youtube. Actually believe schools should offer both theory’s and inspire youth to think for themselves. Who knows, maybe it would lead some youth to make a “absolute” discovery one way or the other.
Great post. Evolutionists need to make leaps that far surpass rational logic to justify Darwin’s version of evolution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.