Posted on 09/26/2005 5:44:09 AM PDT by DARCPRYNCE
Charles Darwin, the 19th century geologist who wrote the treatise 'The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection' defined evolution as "descent with modification". Darwin hypothesized that all forms of life descended from a common ancestor, branching out over time into various unique life forms, due primarily to a process called natural selection.
However, the fossil record shows that all of the major animal groups (phyla) appeared fully formed about 540 million years ago, and virtually no transitional life forms have been discovered which suggest that they evolved from earlier forms. This sudden eruption of multiple, complex organisms is often referred to as the Cambrian Explosion, and even Darwin knew about the lack of evidence in the fossil record to support his theory a century and a half ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at chronwatch.com ...
Yes, and we have abundant, physical evidence of this type of 'intelligent design': 1) A long recorded history of painters.
2) Detailed brush strokes, which can be essentially reproduced with contemporary brushes.
3) Detailed knowledge of the nature and manufacture of paints
Show me the corresponding evidence for the intelligent design in nature. Until you can, it remains a *completely unsupported hypothesis*.
Yes, it does. I find the whole area of text reconstruction from computer analysis fascinating.
The interesting thing is that when biblical scholars make deductions from relatively small, multiply-copied fragments of text - and I'm not saying they're bad deductions - the fundamentalists lap it up as hard evidence for the historicity of Jesus. But take much stronger evidence for evolution from gene sequences or fossils, and all of a sudden it's indirect, conjectural, implausible, and wild-ass guessing.
The interesting thing is that when biblical scholars make deductions from relatively small, multiply-copied fragments of text - and I'm not saying they're bad deductions - the fundamentalists lap it up as hard evidence for the historicity of Jesus. But take much stronger evidence for evolution from gene sequences or fossils, and all of a sudden it's indirect, conjectural, implausible, and wild-ass guessing.<<
You don't believe in logic or reason. You haven't thought of them in years. Why do you have an expection for the fundamentalists you don't have for yourself?
DK
"Teaching evolution as a scientific theory is fine as long as they also make the kids understand the scientific fact that science can't explain the origin of things like atoms."
Another Creationist totally ignorant of modern Science. You might want to check out a little something called "Quantum Theory". Now it is 'only a theory' but it does 'explain the origin of things like atoms'. Things so 'like atoms' that they are, like, atoms; or something.
Just when you think they cannot get any more ignorant...
The point is the bias of the scientists regarding the formation of the Scablands. They immediately assumed it could not have been formed by a geologically recent flood - did you not find that concerning? Or is your bias so strong, you thought it was just fine.
This guy is stalking me from thread to thread, posting the same comment, evidently for the purpose of harassment. Could you please deal with it?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1491393/posts?page=283#283
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1491393/posts?page=275#275
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1489731/posts?page=349#349
The biggest problem with evolution is that it has an awful lot of holes in it as a theory.
According to evolutional theory, if I had a bin full of auto parts, all I would have to do is shake that bin long enough until I managed to assemble a Cadillac. This is whee the concept of time comes in: naturally, one cannot be expected to create a Cadillac from extraneous parts by simply shaking the bin. However, if I were to shake that bin for 2 or 3 million years, the chance that I just might put that Cadillac together in this fashion, begins to improve dramatically.
Since time, to most of us, is not a concrete concept and the lengths of time we're talking about are beyond the comprehension of most people (can you really imagine how long 1,000,000 years is?), evolution makes sense. Time stretches to cover (almost) all holes in the theory.
The second hole in the theory of evolution has to do with incremental steps. For example, I can see in color. In order to this, my eyeballs have been adapted to seperate the component parts of light and reassemble them. My retinas are attuned to seeing in color and my brain is wired to help me translate color.
According to evolutionary theory, all three of these mechanisms would have had to occur simultaneously and in harmony, or I wouldn't be able to see in color. Take away the specialized eyeball and the retina, and I have a brain that could translate color, but no way to see it. According to evolutionary theory, this would be a useless trait, and therefore would not be passed on to the next generation.
Finally, the worst part of evolutionary theory is the identification of how an organism makes adaptations that are beneficial to it's enviornment. Do organisms "will" such changes into existance? Is there a thought process involved? Is there empirical process (trial and error)?
In debate you need to be able to state your opponent's position befor attacking it. Auto parts do not reproduce themselves and cannot evolve. Try again.
I am reminding you of a horrendously stupid thing you said in another thread on the same subject. If you were less pompous in your treatment of people that disagree, I would not give you another thought.
But if you cannot take your own words, some self-examination is in order. Doncha think?
DK
And yet again...
Of course they don't, but it proves the point; even when you have the component parts there is no guarentee they will assemble into the form you want of their own volition.
The same can be said of the "building blocks of life". If you put amino acids, elements, chemicals and such in a bowl, there is no guratenee they will combine to form something we would recognize as life.
I notice you did not defend or attack the other premises about time and incremental steps. Hard to argue with them, is it?
I posted the copy that I had as is. However, I should have made the clarification immediately and not waited to be called on it. I felt I was getting long winded in the original post. The only reason that I countered with Josephus' writings was to refute the intitial, inaccurate comments made by the poster.
As for the Christians who are lecturing you, it is not my place to judge or lecture as a Christian. I simply state information which I have found useful in my study. People are free to do with it what they please.
The case for Christ, when thouroughly researched, is a pretty strong one.
Macroevolution as the explanation for the existence and diversity of species is the worship of the trinity of chaos, random chance and time as creators. In modern times, however, these three unfortunately seem to have lost their creative powers.
Sometimes I tire of these threads.
NS is not that important a theory in science. It does not have that many inroads to applications.
It does not have many inroads to Medicine. It should.
Until the last 40 years, it was strictly a thought argument.
It has been superHyped by soft science biologists. As always, my apologies to the molecular geneticists, and hard core scientists that have advanced biology beyond its infancy.
Of course philosophy is never important to scientists, they will have the typical troubles of those that don't know how they know anything.
There are even very learned people that don't care about logic and reason, that pontificate about evolution. But they don't have a clue that they are the problem, not the solution.
They hide behind the skirts of others. I really don't like speaking to cowards that deny their own words.
They are pathetic.
Thanks wolf!
DK
I think it is the tendency of some (note I said some) scientists to ridicule Christians and their faith-based beliefs. Thus, some Christians then figure turnabout is fair play and lump science into one category. The evolution debate fuels this too with some taking the notion that since scientists believe in evolution, then a LOT of science is bad.
That being said, I've never had a problem with a lot of science. It is man's way of understanding God's processes and often brings to light the beauty and order of God's creations. As I said before, learning evolution only strengthened my belief in God and his creation. I was believing in intelligent design 20 years ago before it became fashionable.
We wouldn't be anywhere without science. Nearly everything we use has been based on some scientific principle. I had WONDERFUL science professors in college--both at the secular institution and at the private religious university .
You're right. Science is a beautiful thing to show God's wonders. And children today LOVE science. What little boy doesn't love dinosaurs? I was one of them as were my 5 brothers. None of us grew up to be old evolutionists, just simple folks trying to do their best in life.
The biggest problem with evolution is that it has an awful lot of holes in it as a theory.
I would probably say so too. But it is kind of pointless to debate as people will think what they want to think. I just like being descended from Adam and not Adam the amoeba, though my physical features sort of look more like an amoeba, hmmm.....
I think there is a medium to all of this. Evolution has faults and extreme creationism has faults.
I think schools should show the facts and then point out different theories and the reasons behind those theories.
I think an interesting debate for a school would be evolution/intelligent design/creationism.
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.