Posted on 12/22/2005 7:15:18 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
WHEN Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, he gave a convincing account of how life has evolved over billions of years from simple microbes to the complexity of the Earth's biosphere to the present. But he pointedly left out how life got started.
One might as well speculate about the origin of matter, he quipped. Today scientists have a good idea of how matter originated in the Big Bang, but the origin of life remains shrouded in mystery.
Although Darwin refused to be drawn on how life began, he conjectured in a letter to a friend about "a warm little pond" in which various substances would accumulate.
Driven by the energy of sunlight, these chemicals might become increasingly complex, until a living cell formed spontaneously. Darwin's idle speculation became the basis of the "primordial soup" theory of biogenesis, and was adopted by researchers eager to re-create the crucial steps in the laboratory. But this approach hasn't got very far.
The problem is that even the simplest known organism is incredibly complex. Textbooks vaguely describe the pathway from non-living chemicals to primitive life in terms of some unspecified "molecular self-assembly".
The problem lies with 19th-century thinking, when life was regarded as some sort of magic matter, fostering the belief that it could be cooked up in a test tube if only one knew the recipe.
Today many scientists view the living cell as a type of supercomputer - an information-processing and replicating system of extraordinary fidelity. DNA is a database, and a complex encrypted algorithm converts its instructions into molecular products.
(Excerpt) Read more at smh.com.au ...
There are different kinds of souls (or Aristotelian "forms"): vegetative, animal and human. Human souls include the powers of the other two, plus the subsistent intellect/will.
I seem to recall touching on these in Science (Sociology) class. The "irrational roots of rationality" of Max Weber pondered why we do the "right" thing.
Paper or plastic?
actually I did, I don't right now. My document with the links has disappeared ( I know - how convenient).
I like a good conspiracy theory as the next guy, but this one isn't very good.
Actually, Karl Marx so liked Darwin's Origin of Species that he wrote Darwin and told him he would like to dedicate the 2nd volume of Das Capital to him...Darwin refused the offer. So I think it's pretty well established that darwinism is very appealing to communists and it has been used by them to promote atheism.
The shape of a snowflake is based upon the external forces acting upon that individual snowflake. Otherwise snowflakes could be identical.
Not all stars are fueled by hydrogen fusion. Your post is incorrect and pointless. Astronomy operates by observation and inference, not by experiment.
-A8
Intelligent design has nothing to do with evolution or creationism.
I responded:
Not factually correct. Didn't you read the court transcript which showed the Panda book originally had "creation" in numerous places, but after the Supreme Court Edwards decision in 1987 a global search and replace was made to insert "intelligence"? ...
Now you respond:
What does a singular court decision based on one poorly crafted book have to do with deciding the fallacy of ID?
I demonstrated a connection between ID and creationism. I did not attempt to demonstrate a "fallacy" or any such.
I merely responded to your claim "Intelligent design has nothing to do with evolution or creationism" with evidence to the contrary.
That was a statement to try to kill the rampant assumption even 200 years ago that worms and flies and tadpoles formed from unhealthy pools of muck. It is not necessary to extend it to an absolute law.
This link has been provided courtesy of Darwin Central, "The Conspiracy that Cares."
Corrected in #123 and again here:
. Let me change that statement then.
"Intelligent design no causal relationship with evolution or creationism".
The theory that just given enough time and randomness that life will form is like given the letters of the alphabet and letting a random generator create words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters that eventually you will have all the works of William Shakespeare. RIGHT?
Maybe you will like this one better. There are many Democrat moles on FR whose purpose is to divide the Republicans by alienating conservatives. Like that one?
Consider the difference between Newton's law of gravitation and Einstein's theory of gravitation. Newton started with measurements and made his equation to fit them; Einstein started with a set of physical principles, and derived his equations from them.
well, in my search for the links again... I am getting a lot of hits to the fact that the info I recieved is not true...
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.