Posted on 12/13/2007 12:45:57 PM PST by SubGeniusX
It’s interesting the way creationists, if they can’t argue against what someone actually said, will argue against what they “must have meant.” It’s one of the traits that distinguishes creationism from real science.
But I think I’ve found what you’re referring to. Darwin did once speculate in a letter to a friend about life forming “in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present”—but he was doing so in the context of saying why such life wouldn’t survive today. He was not saying that that’s how he thought life began originally.
And besides, it was just speculation in a personal letter. What he was willing to say in print was “[how life itself first originated] are problems for the distant future, if they are ever to be solved by man” (Descent of Man, chapter 3) and “our ignorance is as profound on the origin of life as on the origin of force or matter” (essay to the Atheneum, 1863). In other words, he didn’t know, and he didn’t think it was necessary to his theory.
Note the part about the origin of force or matter. Do you require physicists and chemists to state where those come from before you accept their theories about how they work?
And evolution is a fact. Living things once existed that don’t exist any more, and exist now that didn’t use to exist. The theory of evolution explains why that’s so.
Yeah, the FSM has almost as much credibility as macro evolution creation.
Fixed that for ya, my friend!
It is also interesting how evolutionist ignore the hard argument to postulate about their own beliefs. The fact that there are things that did exist and don,t exist now are supposedly explained by extinction I have never heard anyone insinuate they evolved out of existence. As for things that now exist that did not exist I would say they got here the same as every other thing did, but that is the root of our discussion isn’t it. Of course we don’t want to talk about how that first thing evolved do we.
What’s the difference between “extinction” and “evolved out of existence”?
The most popular explanation for extinction is the meteor that struck the earth I believe around the Yucatan peninsula that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.I would say that the reptiles did not evolve out of life but were killed off. By evolved out of life I would say that one day it was a pig and the next day it was a hippopotamus.
We are not connected to monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys.
Why should we give ID anymore debate? It was dreamed up 4,000 years ago. It was dreamed up because people didn't understand simple things like gravity, air, and Mc Donalds French Fries.
Ah, the classic argumentum ad nanny-nanny-boo-boo. Haven't seen that one in a while.
Fixed that for ya, my friend!
No, I knew what I meant: macro evolution.
Actually that would be 6,000 yrs. ago. As opposed to a little over 100 yrs. ago when evolution was dreamed up.
So the speed of light, radioactive decay, and the entire field of Geology mean nothing because you believe what was written by a group of people 4000 years ago??? Granted I’m sure they were nice folks, but they could not conceptualize that air had mass? They had no conception of mass? How could they understand DNA, basic chemistry, or anything outside of there scrape by day-by-day farming and herding?
Mmmmm...Bacon.
Didn’t say they did.
I’m perfectly aware of the many extinctions in the past. Your condescending attitude just shows you are incapable of caring on a logical argument. Good day to you!!
* Dr. Robert A. Millikan, famous physicist and Nobel prize-winner, said in an address, a few years ago, to the American chemical society, "The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no scientists can do." Dr. Millikan is an evolutionist; but he is honest enough to admit it as a theory that cannot be proved.Millikan died 1953, in the age of 85....
I've read enough of Darwin's work to know that while he postulates a common ancestor he doesn't identify it, and if he claims it evolved from rocks then I must have missed it. Can you provide a quote?
* Professor Theodosius dobzhansky, a leading evolutionary spokesman, has admitted that "it would be wrong to say that the biological theory of evolution has gained universal acceptance among biologists or even among geneticists".Do you really think this quote represents Theodosius Dobzhansky's thinking better than his most popular quote, i.e.,
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution (The American Biology Teacher, March 1973, p. 129)The latter is the headline of an article he wrote - and subsumes the ideas of said article. The former - not accredited one - may be just a lament that there are a few biologist not accepting the theory of evolution...
Hollywood has been beating this drum since the sixties...nothing new here.
Liberals are all the same and they think and act like...liberals.
I'd like you to show some of the "miss-characterization, and outright distortion coming out the propaganda site sourced in your link". Up to now, the only examples of distortions are from the site you cited, i.e., fishy quotations...
Merry Christmas -
perhaps, after the holidays, you'll find some time to answer my questions from #95 and #119.
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.