Skip to comments.
Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution
Scientific American ^
| October 2006 issue
| Michael Shermer
Posted on 09/18/2006 1:51:27 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,481-1,500, 1,501-1,520, 1,521-1,540 ... 2,001-2,015 next last
To: PatrickHenry
Discovery Institute Prime.
1,501
posted on
09/26/2006 6:38:59 AM PDT
by
Thatcherite
(I'm PatHenry I'm the real PatHenry all the other PatHenrys are just imitators)
To: PatrickHenry
Donno. The rules are different here. Not just the behavior rules, which don't trouble me as long as they're applied even-handedly, but the intellectual rules seem to be different here. You are correct. That is why I stay away from the Religion forum. Here, the Bible IS a valid source of facts (scientific and otherwise). It is a great place for theology and has some of the most erudite debates on FR.
But it is NOT a place for science.
1,502
posted on
09/26/2006 6:43:23 AM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(Insultification is the polar opposite of Niceosity)
To: Thatcherite
1500! A noble accomplishment.
1,503
posted on
09/26/2006 6:58:38 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Science-denial is not conservative. It's reality-denial and that's what liberals do.)
To: PatrickHenry
A noble accomplishment.We had to run Darwin Central's Babbage Analytical Engine for 2 days to confirm that 1500 is indeed prime. Another triumph for DC's crack mathematologists. We are now searching to see if there may exist yet higher primes, but some of the brass teeth are wearing out and will require replacement (including shipping from London to the Galapagos). The invoice for 900 guineas will be passed on to the Grandmaster's Counting House.
1,504
posted on
09/26/2006 7:21:26 AM PDT
by
Thatcherite
(I'm PatHenry I'm the real PatHenry all the other PatHenrys are just imitators)
To: Alamo-Girl
1,505
posted on
09/26/2006 8:47:16 AM PDT
by
gobucks
(Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
To: freedumb2003
It is a great place for theology and has some of the most erudite debates on FR. Not with these posters!?
1,506
posted on
09/26/2006 8:49:14 AM PDT
by
balrog666
(Ignorance is never better than knowledge. - Enrico Fermi)
To: js1138; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; cornelis; PatrickHenry
In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker of February 1 1871, he made the suggestion that life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, [so] that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". The Hooker letter did not publicly surface until 1950. It is doubtful that Darwin took this speculation seriously, since he never put it in any of his published works. And from what he does include in his published works, it appears the origin of life was not a problem he engaged in his evolutionary theory.
Methinks you wish to keep the door open for abiogenesis, though as a Darwinist you aren't "required" to.
1,507
posted on
09/26/2006 9:38:42 AM PDT
by
betty boop
(Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
To: betty boop
Methinks you wish to keep the door open for abiogenesis, though as a Darwinist you aren't "required" to.I'm sure most biologists expect abiogenesis to be solved. Personally, I think it's a tough problem, and I don't expect to live to see it solved. Science is not for the impatient.
But such problems are never solved by people who don't look.
Your assessment of Darwin's speculation is as trustworthy as your quotations.
1,508
posted on
09/26/2006 9:43:39 AM PDT
by
js1138
(The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
To: js1138
I'm sure most biologists expect abiogenesis to be solved. Nobelist Francis Crick (of DNA fame) thinks not, because it requires things that are impossible.
1,509
posted on
09/26/2006 9:56:38 AM PDT
by
betty boop
(Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
To: betty boop
Nobelist Francis Crick (of DNA fame) thinks not, because it requires things that are impossible.Perhaps you'd care to be more specific about his thoughts. You imply he believed life resulted from a miracle. Is that what you intended?
1,510
posted on
09/26/2006 10:27:49 AM PDT
by
js1138
(The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
Comment #1,511 Removed by Moderator
Comment #1,512 Removed by Moderator
To: Coyoteman
Indeed, I am speaking of the evolutionary tree of life. I'm astonished that we need to specify which one when we say "tree of life" these days. LOL!
To: js1138; ahayes; betty boop; cornelis; PatrickHenry
The "Oooooooh. Great minds and so forth. " in your post 1453 to ahayes is the reason I lumped my reply to the both of you. I was taken by surprise considering how long you have been on the forum and all your posts which I have read, the major points of which are fairly summed up at 1493.
In your list, item 6 is the point I've been trying to underscore over and again in our little sidebar. You said:
We have strong evidence that all living things on earth are related by common descent.
That of course, is the evolutionary tree of life - which means life comes from life under Darwin's theory of evolution because he did not address the inception of life at all (abiogensis v biogenesis). It is a continuum. Darwin's presupposition, his very theory is built on "omne vivum ex vivo" which IS the Law of Biogenesis.
To: .30Carbine
Thank you oh so very much for your encouragements!
To: PatrickHenry; ahayes; js1138
Thank you so very much for confirming that things have not changed on the evolution side of the debate! And yes, ahayes, I'm aware that individuals on either side of the debate have conflicting views with their own side - which is fine, except it "threw me" to see your position evidently embraced by an old-timer, js1138. Anytime a js1138, PatrickHenry or other oldtimer says something new, it gets my attention.
me: ... (and therefore theologically speaking, completely unacceptable to every Abrahamic religion?) you: You lost me. Anyway, the answer to that last part is "no" because the answer to the premise was "no."
It was one of their fiercest arguments to other Christians around here (which would apply the Judaism and Islam as well) - that evolution necessarily requires a belief in abiogenesis and therefore a disbelief in a Creator, i.e. a drift to Deism or Eastern theology. The counter-argument of course was that the theory of evolution does not address the question of abiogenesis v biogenesis.
To: betty boop
Thank you so much for all of your outstanding, engaging posts!
Nobelist Francis Crick (of DNA fame) thinks not, because it requires things that are impossible.
That was quite an eye-opener for me!
To: Alamo-Girl
Darwin's presupposition, his very theory is built on "omne vivum ex vivo" which IS the Law of Biogenesis. That is incorrect. The origin of life is outside the scope of the ToE.
1,518
posted on
09/26/2006 3:20:14 PM PDT
by
LibertarianSchmoe
("...yeah, but, that's different!" - mating call of the North American Ten-Toed Hypocrite)
To: LibertarianSchmoe
Thank you for your reply! But the parsing of the sentence is correct. Darwin's theory which indeed does not address abiogenesis v. biogenesis, is a continuum (evolutionary tree of life) based on the presumption that "life comes from life" (omne vivum ex vivo) which also happens to be the law of Biogenesis.
To: Alamo-Girl
It is a continuum. Darwin's presupposition, his very theory is built on "omne vivum ex vivo" which IS the Law of Biogenesis. Sorry, but this is simply wrong in every possible way.
- Evolution can happen regardless of how life started.
- Evolution can happen regardless of how many times life independently started.
- You are conflating a process with a specific history.
- There is nothing about the process of evolution that requires common descent. We just happen to have a lot of evidence that common descent describes life on earth.
- Darwin never said or implied life only comes from life. In Origin he said evolution begins with the first living cell.
- Later he is on record speculating about abiogenesis
- Biogenesis and evolution are not tied together by necessity. They may or may not be tied together by fact.
1,520
posted on
09/26/2006 3:27:03 PM PDT
by
js1138
(The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,481-1,500, 1,501-1,520, 1,521-1,540 ... 2,001-2,015 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson