Darwin: Headed for the Ash-Heap

And Rightlyso...Conservative Book Club ^ | 1-20-2006 | Jeffrey Rubin

[joyspring777]

Of the three intellectual pillars of modern liberalism -- Marx, Darwin, and Freud -- only one is still standing. Marx fell in 1989, along with the Berlin Wall. Freud's demise is more difficult to date; suffice it to say that, by the end of the century, no one, with the possible exception of Woody Allen, took him seriously any more. Darwin, I predict, will suffer a similar fate within the next ten to fifteen years.

That may seem counterintuitive in light of recent legal and public-relations setbacks suffered by critics of Darwinism -- notably a federal judge's decision forbidding the teaching of "Intelligent Design" (a term for one aspect of the anti-Darwin critique) in Dover, Pa., public schools. But it is a sign of weakness, not strength, when one side in an ostensibly scientific debate resorts to silencing the other. If the case for Darwin is such a slam-dunk, why not welcome the chance for its opponents to make fools of themselves?

No, Darwinists are running scared. Even their attempts to declare victory on scientific grounds betray more than a whiff of desperation. Case in point: the year-end edition of the journal Science hailing "evolution in action" as its "Breakthrough of the Year." Among the "dramatic discoveries" said by the magazine to make 2005 "a banner year for uncovering the intricacies of how evolution actually proceeds," none in itself demonstrates whether evolution proceeds, and they only shed light on how if you first assume that it does.

Here, for instance, is Science editor Donald Kennedy describing "one of my favorites" in this evidentiary explosion: "the European blackcap, a species of warbler that spends the winter in two separate places but then reunites to breed, with birds selecting mates from those who shared the same wintering ground. Assortative mating of this kind can produce a gradual differentiation of the two populations. Biologists have shown that new species can arise because of geographic barriers that separate subpopulations, but the divergent evolution shown in this case could result in new species arising within a single range."

If it seems that the bare facts adduced here don't quite amount to a clear instance of "evolution in action," that's because they don't. At best, they demonstrate what's known as "microevolution" -- modification within a species -- which no anti-Darwinist disputes. What is disputed is "macroevolution," the change of one species into another, which is the central claim of Darwinism. If macroevolution occurs, the "assortative mating" of the European blackcap might help to explain how it works, but it does nothing to prove that it does occur.

The fact is,nothing proves that macroevolution occurs, or ever has occurred. And, at a certain point, the absence of proof, especially where it ought to be abundant, constitutes, if not positive disproof, at least strong reasons for doubt. According to Darwin's theory of descent through gradual modification (by way of random mutation and natural selection), the fossil record should contain near-infinite numbers of ever-so-slightly-different "transitional" forms, and even greater numbers of evolutionary dead ends. Despite the best efforts of archaeologists, not even a hint of that has materialized in the fossil record. Instead, what we should not expect to find, according to Darwin's theory, is what we do find: the sudden appearance of innumerable distinct species, as we have in the so-called Cambrian Explosion.

Needless to say, a debate like this can't be settled in the space of a column. Neither, however, can it be settled by shutting out the other side. Darwinists, of course, would have us believe that there is no other side, only a bunch of anti-science religious fanatics who don't deserve to be heard. That approach can succeed, but not for long. As I say, I give them fifteen years, tops.

[wireman]

We are winning!

What's the prize? A return to the dark ages?

[ScubieNuc]

"Well, if you've got some piece of evidence you can produce demonstrating Gods presence, then let's see it."

The best physical evidence for the existance of God is Jesus. I would recommend a book, I think it's called, The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel.

Historical Jesus is real. Something amazing happened in Jerusalem 2000 years ago. A belief in a risen savior, grew from the lowest sect of a conquered people, in an unimportant part of the Roman Empire. This belief grew inspite of the loss of life. This belief grew inspite of the fact that it did not benefit the people who believed it materialisticly.

Secular historians even marvel at the growth. These people were not afraid of death. If their leader was dead and buried, the authorities could easily shut them down by showing the followers that their leader was destroyed. However, the body was gone. Even Josepheus notes that Jesus' tomb was empty. He claims that the body was stolen.

There is a quick overview HERE if you are interested.

In the end, though, you won't find God through "proof." You find God through faith, then He gives you the "proof." Not all the people that witnessed Jesus' miracles and resurection accepted Him as God.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

If you seek God in faith, He will answer you.

Mat 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

Mat 7:8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

The "proof" of God is the Holy Spirit, which gives peace to your soul.

Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all [ye] that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

Sincerely

[VadeRetro]

So long for now....

The tender farewell from joyspring777 to joyspring777 will ring down through the ages of Internet history.

[jennyp]

Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else.
Evolution (1999) p.109
Colin Patterson  (1933 – 1998) 

Sure, and you can't tell with metaphysical certainty whether this 1911 photo is that of a single family or a small school where each student came from a different family:

Anyway, if creationism is correct, then the skulls in post 84 should still be able to be put into separate "baramin", even if none of them are related to the others. All you have to do is find the ones that have "macro-differences" to the others. If apes & humans were different created kinds, then this should be easy.

[ScubieNuc]

"It's only those whose interpretation of Scripture is at odds with reality that would be considered insane."

The most important tenet of Christian belief is that Jesus raised from the dead and assended (alive) into heaven. Do you think that is at odds with reality?

Sincerely

[Junior]

Now you're changing the subject. We were talking about an interpretation of Scripture. There is no evidence one way or another for Jesus' rising from the dead. However, there is positive evidence Genesis cannot be taken literally.

[ScubieNuc]

"Now you're changing the subject. We were talking about an interpretation of Scripture. There is no evidence one way or another for Jesus' rising from the dead. However, there is positive evidence Genesis cannot be taken literally."

How is my question changing the subject? You stated that you believed "It's only those whose interpretation of Scripture is at odds with reality that would be considered insane."

Is Jesus rising from the dead at odds with reality? Have you ever seen or heard of anyone else seeing someone raise from the dead? If not, isn't that idea at odds with reality? Why don't you want to answer the question? The answer seems pretty obvious.

There are Christians that don't believe in a literal Genesis, but all Christians believe in a risen Jesus.

Sincerely

[ScubieNuc]

"Have you ever seen or heard of anyone else seeing someone raise from the dead?"

Correction.....Have you ever seen anyone raise from the dead? Have you ever heard of anyone else seeing someone raise from the dead?

Coffee-type-errors

[Mrs. Don-o]

"the fossil record...a vast sea of data, most of which has vanished and the rest of which hasn't been found."

I know, I know, and it's so unfair. It puts us at such a disadvantage.

[ScubieNuc]

By the way...it's important to note that Jesus believed in a literal Genesis. Look at his discussion about marriage. His response is based on Genesis.

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,

From...

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And...

Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

From...

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Sincerely

[Junior]

Evolution's Dead

by Junior

(with apologies to Jamie Cullum)

Darwin's had his day
There's something you should know
I want to say
Darwinism has got to go
Or you'll regret
When I'm above watching you
Earn what you get
We didn't come from goo
No

Open up your eyes
Then you'll realize
Here I said was why
Evolution's dead

Come o'er to my side
You know you cannot hide
Don't matter that I lied
Evolution's dead

Darwin's had his day
There's something you should know
I want to say
Darwinism has got to go
Or you'll regret
When I'm above watching you
Earn what you get
We didn't come from goo
No

If you do not turn
You know you're gonna burn
And I'll watch you squirm
Evolution's dead

[OriginalIntent]

I see you understand the games some play here.

[Junior]

I've been over this many times before.

Let's subject Scripture to the same rigorous standard to which you'd subject science.

You cannot say "Jesus believed in a literal Genesis." You can only say the author of Mathew said Jesus believed in a literal Genesis. We do not have any writings of Jesus himself, only what others have said of him.

Now, considering that Genesis has absolutely no correlation with physical reality, and assuming Jesus really had an inside line to God, one can make the safe assumption that the author of Mathew simply made up the quote in question and that Jesus never actually said that.

[js1138]

Have you ever seen or heard of anyone else seeing someone raise from the dead?

Actually this is rather common, if by rising from the dead you mean people waking up and resuming their lives after being pronounced dead.

This was really common before medicine became reasonably scientific. The fear of being buried alive was rather common, and probably justified.

The main problem with trying to discuss Jesus as scientific case history is the complete lack of forensic evidence. From an empirical point of view there is no reason to accept or deny the story. Nor is there any reason to accept or deny the Ascension. These are matters of faith.

The physical history of the earth can be studied. You can assert that miracles happened that did not leave evidence, but it dishonors religion to make untrue assertions about what the physical evidence is and what it indicates.

[Junior]

As I have pointed out, there is no evidence either way for the resurrection. One cannot truthfully say whether it occured or not. However, there is a mountain of evidence contradicting the account in Genesis. Therefore, a literal reading of Genesis is at odds with reality.

In other words, you are trying to compare apples and oranges. If you cannot see the difference between the two situations above, it does not speak well to our continuing this discourse.

[ScubieNuc]

You say you have been over this....Yet you still haven't answered this.....

You stated that you believed "It's only those whose interpretation of Scripture is at odds with reality that would be considered insane."

Is Jesus rising from the dead at odds with reality? Have you ever seen or heard of anyone rising from the dead? Or know of anyone else seeing someone raise from the dead? If not, isn't that idea at odds with reality? Why don't you want to answer the question?

Do you not realize that All Christians believe in a resurrected Jesus? You indicate that you believe Christians to be insane, I simply want you to verify that, or apologize for over-exagerating.

Sincerely

[Junior]

Okay, you're simply being DENSE. The reality of the resurrection cannot be ascertained THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE COMMENTED UPON. HOWEVER, the reality of Genesis can be ascertained -- and it fails miserably.

Now, do you actually understand what I am saying, or are you going to keep attempting to veer off onto something completely irrelevant? Probably the latter because you are trying to equate the resurrection with Genesis, and I simply refuse to allow you to sidetrack the discussion.

So, if you are willing to discuss the reality of Genesis, we'll talk. Otherwise you can play your silly little word games and banter semantics with someone else. You may then consider yourself on Virtual Ignore.

[ScubieNuc]

"The main problem with trying to discuss Jesus as scientific case history is the complete lack of forensic evidence."

That is mainly true. The point of my response to narby, is that there is proof that Jesus existed. There is proof that MANY people believed that he was God and were willing to die for it. The thing that must be analyzed is why?

If you read my full response to narby, I state that God won't prove Himself to you in order for you to believe. It's the other way around...You must act in faith and he will reveal Himself to you through His Holy Spirit.

" You can assert that miracles happened that did not leave evidence, but it dishonors religion to make untrue assertions about what the physical evidence is and what it indicates."

Please explain?

Sincerely

[js1138]

I am not interested in discussing religion on these threads. I do so only when religion is injected into discussions of scientific topics.

Singular events that do not leave evidence that can be examined are outside the scope of science. You believe them or you don't.

Some claims are within the scope of science,including the age of the earth, the configuration of the planets, the lineage of living things, and evidence that might indicate a global flood.

I haven't followed this thread closely enough to know if you have made claims contrary to science. I assume you disagree with at least some of science, or you would not be bringing religion into this thread.

[ScubieNuc]

"The reality of the resurrection cannot be ascertained THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE COMMENTED UPON. HOWEVER, the reality of Genesis can be ascertained -- and it fails miserably."

So it can be ascetained (made certain) that God created the world? So it can be ascertained (made certain) that God made woman from the rib of a man? Hmmmm

The ressurection cannot be ascertained (made certain), and you won't comment on it.

The reality is that Genesis cannot be made certain (ascertained) or proven, and yet you freely comment on how people who believe in it as certainty are insane.

The Bible actually backs you up that Christians will be viewed as fools....

1Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

1Cr 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

1Cr 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

The saddest part is in the first verse....You are dieing without Jesus.

Sincerely