Posted on 09/13/2005 4:15:07 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
So what would Charles Darwin have to say about the dust-up between today's evolutionists and intelligent designers?
Probably nothing.
[snip]
Even after he became one of the most famous and controversial men of his time, he was always content to let surrogates argue his case.
[snip]
From his university days Darwin would have been familiar with the case for intelligent design. In 1802, nearly 30 years before the Beagle set sail, William Paley, the reigning theologian of his time, published "Natural Theology" in which he laid out his "Argument from Design."
Paley contended that if a person discovered a pocket watch while taking a ramble across the heath, he would know instantly that this was a designed object, not something that had evolved by chance. Therefore, there must be a designer. Similarly, man -- a marvelously intricate piece of biological machinery -- also must have been designed by "Someone."
If this has a familiar ring to it, it's because this is pretty much the same argument that intelligent design advocates use today.
[snip]
The first great public debate took place on June 30, 1860, in a packed hall at Oxford University's new Zoological Museum.
Samuel Wilberforce, the learned bishop of Oxford, was champing at the bit to demolish Darwin's notion that man descended from apes. As always, Darwin stayed home. His case was argued by one of his admirers, biologist Thomas Huxley.
Wilberforce drew whoops of glee from the gallery when he sarcastically asked Huxley if he claimed descent from the apes on his grandmother's side or his grandfather's. Huxley retorted that he would rather be related to an ape than to a man of the church who used half-truths and nonsense to attack science.
The argument continues unabated ...
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
BTW, I've come back to full-blown posting for a little while in honour of ModernMan. I got really mad over that issue and my first reaction was to drop out of FR. But then I thought that would be just would the forces of anti-reason would want. Always do the opposite of what the opposition would want... So, MM, hope you are reading this. Come back soon!
Matt 7:15,16
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Matt 24:11
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Matt 24:24
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
II Pet 2:1,2
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
I John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Large parts of it.
It's not really that difficult. I believe Hovind actually posts on these threads. I have my suspicions of who he is, too.
I would consider the horrendous science behind creationism to be a blatant example of something peddled by false prophets. I know them by their fruits.
"If there's falling, there must be an Intelligent Pusher?"
; )
Sorry to confuse you. I don't want to talk about the evolution of rock 'n roll, the evolution of stars, or the evolution of the English language. I want to talk about the Theory of Evolution, which falls under biology and describes the changes in species over time.
Can we take the Bible as read, and give up the endless spouting of verses? Please?
Really?
Hovind, you're an unintelligent, criminal, noxious charlatan, who would in any civilized society be making license plates for a long time. And by the time the IRS are done with you, you probably will be.
Please all feel free to add to this.
People who act like clowns get treated like clowns - why would expect anything different?
"Conclusion is completely unrelated to premise:
a. abiogenesis could occur more than once, and lead to non-common ancestory
b.A divine spark could occur only once, removing the need for abiogenesis, but preserving common ancestory."
You've proven my point. You can't claim universal common ancestry as fact without a specific idea of abiogenesis. Otherwise (a) would be allowed to occur, and therefore there would be no reason to conclude universal common ancestry.
"The evidence for common descent in numerous correlating fields of modern observation is so strong that it has even been accepted by the leading science-qualified lights of ID such as Denton, Behe, and Dembski."
What, specifically, speaks to Universal Common Ancestry that wouldn't equally speak to Universal Common Requirements?
If you are looking for evidence of Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian evolution, the only kind we are interested in, then evidence of evolution is observable every time an organism reproduces. If you are expecting to be presented with the typical creationist strawman version of evolution, you will not see it. All evolution, even though it results in higher taxonomic classes (which are purely human constructs by the way), works only at the species level. Anything you've been told or read that states we should see something such as a cat giving birth to a dog is at least wrong and at most a lie.
"Or how about one time where, in a lab, under controlled conditions, life was created out of non life.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The study of abiogenesis is far too young to base it's truth value on it's success rate. Abiogenesis is not evolution since evolution requires an organism, pre-biotic or not, that experiences selection of the results of imperfect replication. At this point, evolution can only be applied to living organisms. This in itself precludes it being applied to the origin of life.
The shadowy Area 51 has Evolved to Post #52: Chisled in stone.
Mammal-Like Reptiles
As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).
|
M. Eyes = ?
Nose = ?
Teeth incisors = ?
K. Eyes = ?
Nose = pointy
Teeth incisors = small
J. Eyes = Medium
Nose = stubby
Teeth incisors = BIG
I. Eyes = Medium
Nose = less stubby
Teeth incisors = big
H. Eyes = smaller
Nose = more blunt
Teeth incisors = smaller
G. Eyes = SMALL
Nose = Pointer
Teeth incisors = Skinny
F. Eyes = BIG
Nose = Blunt
Teeth incisors = Thin
E. Eyes = HUGE!
Nose = pointy, again
Teeth incisors = Bigger
D. Eyes = Smaller
Nose = Getting wider
Teeth incisors = Bigger: two!
C. Eyes = Huge, again!
Nose = broader
Teeth incisors = very small
B. Eyes = less huge
Nose = less broad
Teeth incisors = ??
A. Eyes = bigger again
Nose = rounded
Teeth incisors = small
|
bluepistolero
Didn't you use to be a Christian?
That's microevolution within the overall trend of macroevolution.
bluepistolero
Romans 5:12-21
12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21. so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
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.