Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Problem With Evolution
ChronWatch ^ | 09/25/05 | Edward L. Daley

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: animoacids; anothercrevothread; bacterialflagellum; charles; charlesthaxton; code; complexity; creation; creationsim; crevolist; crevorepublic; darwin; darwinschmarwin; deankenyon; descent; design; dna; doublehelix; embryos; enoughalready; evolution; fable; genetics; genisis; god; homology; id; intelligent; irreducible; jonathanwells; judeochristian; keywordbonanza; legend; macroevolution; michaelbehe; michaeldenton; micromachines; modification; molecule; moralabsolutes; morphology; mutation; myth; natural; needanotherkeyword; origin; paulnelson; phillipjohnson; proteins; selection; selforganization; speciation; species; stephenmeyer; thumpgoesthebible; toomanykeywords; vertebrates; walterbradley; williamdembski; yomommaisanape
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341 next last
To: damoboy

Heck, a computer? If I even found a penny on the ground, I would presume it was minted somewhere in the US. Shouldn't those billions of years been able to produce a lump of copper in the exact size and shape of a penny with a randomly etched pattern on it that just happens to resemble a specific man and building? Sounds more plausible than billions of organic molecules bumping together in some primordial soup that just happened to make the right combination to result in this whole planetful of life.


21 posted on 09/26/2005 6:21:56 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: moog

The main difference is that, a few centuries ago, the existing evidence showed that the earth-centric view was not tenable. Therefore, the theory was scrapped and another, new, heliocentric model -which fit - was adopted, tested , and found to be true. The trouble with ID is that, even though many of the theories are equally untenable, they keep trying to twist the logic to make them usable.


22 posted on 09/26/2005 6:22:06 AM PDT by KeepUSfree (WOSD = fascism pure and simple.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: Marauder
Oh yes, religious zealots have it over us Scientist when it comes to being open minded and tolerant.

Now how many massacres were initiated by differences in Scientific ideology?

How many people were burnt at the stake for disagreeing about Science?

How many wars were started over Scientific interpretation?

Add a complete and total ignorance of history to your complete and total ignorance of Science and now your getting somewhere. Not anyplace I'd like to be, but somewhere. Somewhere stupid.
24 posted on 09/26/2005 6:23:55 AM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tamalejoe
Evolutionists are making evolution into a political issue by insisting that it be taught as a fact in public schools at public expense, and that all other competing theories be ruled out apriori and labeled as religion or pseudoscience.

I think both sides are making it into an issue, especially here. I will say that I never had any problem learning evolution in school--it actually strengthened my belief in ID. Besides, my mother and father were perfectly capable of teaching me about creation without having to depend on the government to do so.

ID is still mainly faith-based (one has to have faith in the supreme power) and could not completely replace evolution in length.

There are different versions of the creation, depending on the religion too. In my Sunday school class, the 10 people had 10 different versions of the Creation. One said he thought that all the dinosaurs and such lived on another world and were brought here somehow. Whose version are we going to teach?

I think there are more simple solutions and that there doesn't have to be this long drawn-out battle. STRESS that evolution is a theory. ID is based on that some parts of evolution are true. DISCUSS OR MENTION ID as a competing theory and indicate out its main points--one of them being that the world and the universe is so complex that some believe there was a guiding force behind it all.

There are other things in life besides ID and evolution.

25 posted on 09/26/2005 6:25:11 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell

Did you actually read the article I posted?


26 posted on 09/26/2005 6:25:22 AM PDT by DARCPRYNCE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: KeepUSfree

The trouble with ID is that, even though many of the theories are equally untenable, they keep trying to twist the logic to make them usable.

I can see that, but I think its primary statement is tenable or usable.


27 posted on 09/26/2005 6:26:49 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Thank you... thank you very much. :o)


28 posted on 09/26/2005 6:27:08 AM PDT by DARCPRYNCE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde

I fail to see the problem with wanting to teach the best theory we have about how we got here.


I think the problem is teaching it as the ONLY theory.


29 posted on 09/26/2005 6:27:25 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE

So how come you waited nearly four years to make your first post, my sleeper friend? Or can I jump back to look who got banned around April and answer that question for myself?


30 posted on 09/26/2005 6:29:27 AM PDT by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: damoboy
According to the Bible, Earth was pushed out into a thin envelope of space, from another refrence frame (giving the appearance of advanced age?) and then as energy was added to space (let there be light), space absorbed the energy, reflected the abundance of light (stars and sun was not seen for 3 more days as the light dissapated enough to become visible), and the light trails from the stars were also stretched out (being non-compressible). 6 days? Why not. We're dealing with a very intelligent person who is a non-human. The universe is funky as heck. The uncertainty principle makes sense?

We need to think about the creation of other worlds too. And yes, I agree, God's ways are not our ways. BUT he is more real to me than being just an "intelligent person who is a non-human." That makes him sound like some kind of alien or something.

31 posted on 09/26/2005 6:30:05 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RoadTest

If Darwin were alive today, I wonder if he'd be a Darwinist.


32 posted on 09/26/2005 6:32:18 AM PDT by DARCPRYNCE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: general_re

Attacking a persons character is always a good way to prove your point and win an argument. People can change.


33 posted on 09/26/2005 6:32:36 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mylo

I'd say that the crazy eugenicist "scientific" ideology that became ascendant in the late 1800s is directly responsible for the holocaust. One could also name materialist evolution as the basis for much of the murderous activiy of the communists. Oh no, the hands of materialist "science" are not clean at all. Not by a long shot.

34 posted on 09/26/2005 6:32:54 AM PDT by Seruzawa (If you agree with the French raise your hand - If you are French raise both hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: AZConcervative

Belief in the Bible requires faith. Not everyone is going to believe that Adam and others lived to be centuries of years old for instance or in many of the miracles of the Bible. The world requires a sign or physical proof. Belief in God requires something beyond that.


35 posted on 09/26/2005 6:33:05 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde
I fail to see the problem with wanting to teach the best theory we have about how we got here. If nothing else it shows how the scientific method.

I've been following evolution debates for a few decades now. Here's what I've learned about the Scientific Method:

A scientist should ignore inconvenient facts.
A good scientist shouts down those who disagree with them and questions their standing to even discuss the matter.
A scientist alters their hypothesis when new evidence shows the fallacy of the hypothesis. Keeps the premise, though.
A scientist alters their NEW hypothesis when new evidence .. blah, blah, blah. Keeps the premise, though.

If this is the Scientific Method, and if Evolution shows how the Scientific Method works, then I say we should redouble our efforts to end the teaching of evolution.

36 posted on 09/26/2005 6:33:09 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
Oops, sorry.

Now how many massacres were initiated by differences in Scientific ideology?

I'd say that the crazy eugenicist "scientific" ideology that became ascendant in the late 1800s is directly responsible for the holocaust. One could also name materialist evolution as the basis for much of the murderous activiy of the communists. Oh no, the hands of materialist "science" are not clean at all. Not by a long shot.

37 posted on 09/26/2005 6:33:27 AM PDT by Seruzawa (If you agree with the French raise your hand - If you are French raise both hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle

*laughing* Sarcasm is such a wonderful thing.


38 posted on 09/26/2005 6:33:44 AM PDT by DARCPRYNCE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: metmom

her to another--Attacking a persons character is always a good way to prove your point and win an argument. People can change.

HEHEHEHEHEHEHE Thanks for reminding me:).


39 posted on 09/26/2005 6:34:16 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: general_re

What are you talking about? I post the articles I write at least a couple times a month here. Four years ago I didn't even know FR existed.


40 posted on 09/26/2005 6:36:25 AM PDT by DARCPRYNCE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson