Posted on 03/24/2002 7:03:09 PM PST by scripter
Nope. Darwin was just bluffing - just like he was bluffing about the eye, about the fossils, and about all the objections to his theory. He did not prove anything, all he did was try to put the burden of proof where it did not belong - on his opponents. When one proposes a theory, the burder of proof is on the proponent.
You also ignore the incorrect predictions by Darwin which are central to the theory of evolution. The man was no scientist. He was, as I have said - a charlatan.
Sure you did.
You said "Evolution is impossible."
Can you show me the written connections? This is interesting."
Here's some examples from The Descent of Man:
Civilised populations have been known under favourable conditions, as in the United States, to double their numbers in twenty-five years; and, according to a calculation, by Euler, this might occur in a little over twelve years. (57. See the ever memorable 'Essay on the Principle of Population,' by the Rev. T. Malthus, vol. i. 1826. pp. 6, 517.) ....
There is reason to suspect, as Malthus has remarked, that the reproductive power is actually less in barbarous, than in civilised races. ...
Savages, when hard pressed, encroach on each other's territories, and war is the result; but they are indeed almost always at war with their neighbours. They are liable to many accidents on land and water in their search for food; and in some countries they suffer much from the larger beasts of prey. Even in India, districts have been depopulated by the ravages of tigers.
Malthus has discussed these several checks,
Some examples from the Origin of the Species:
In the next chapter the Struggle for Existence amongst all organic beings throughout the world, which inevitably follows from their high geometrical powers of increase, will be treated of. This is the doctrine of Malthus, applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms. ...
A struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high rate at which all organic beings tend to increase. Every being, which during its natural lifetime produces several eggs or seeds, must suffer destruction during some period of its life, and during some season or occasional year, otherwise, on the principle of geometrical increase, its numbers would quickly become so inordinately great that no country could support the product. Hence, as more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life. It is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms; for in this case there can be no artificial increase of food, and no prudential restraint from marriage. Although some species may be now increasing, more or less rapidly, in numbers, all cannot do so, for the world would not hold them.
So yes, Darwin's theory is heavily dependent on Malthus's discredited chicken-little theory.
My God has a sense of humor that your God is missing.
I am asking you to explain your God's reason giving us the Platypus. You make an excellent claim that the Platypus does not fit an evolutionary pattern (that you can see).
What do you suppose God was up to when He created the Platypus. My suggestion was that He was high. What it your suggestion?
Oh, and you can also respond about the Catalina Island rattle-less rattle snakes while you are at it.
As I told you before, Hitler was a liar, and his taking the good name of God for his anti-Christian deeds does not reflect on Christianity at all. However, his basing of his barbaric deeds on the already popular Darwinian theory which more than condoned, but indeed encouraged eugenics can be firmly placed at the hands of Charles Darwin himself as the quote on post#132 amply proves.
No Darwin proposed eugenics in order to help natural selection along - just like Hitler - as the quote in post#132 amply proves.
And you are thereby limiting God to words writen by men. Words writen by men and interpreted by men.
You claim the Bible is the word of God. Since this is debate about the teaching of science, please show some scientific proof that the Bible is something other than a work of historical fiction similar to "Gone with the wind."
You keep lamely repeating the above but just keep making excuses for providing proof of your statement. Show us the proof of your statement, show is the proof of macro-evolution. And BTW bashing Christianity proves nothing except to show the truth of my statement that evolution is an atheistic/materialist philosophy.
No I do not admit that at all. I believe that every life was put here on earth for a higher purpose than just to improve the race.
Fossils are not evidence of that at all. In 99.9% of the cases all that fossils show us is bones. Bones are not such complicated things at all. The real complicated stuff such as the brains, the internal organs, the genes, the DNA, etc. are not shown at all to us by the fossil evidence. And no, size does not matter - Dinosaurs were quite larger than any other animals.
Your statement is certainly true - there are trillions of cells in the human body - and they all have to work together to make it work.
In California now there is a fight between literalists or providentialists, and biological theorists. And you get in the textbooks both Genesis and Darwinian evolutionism as two "theories" of evolution. You see what that really means? The fundamentalist theologians in California (fundamentalism was well established there at the beginning of the century) don't know what a myth is. They believe it is a theory. They're in ignorance.And the biological theorists don't know that Kant has analysed why one cannot have an immanentist theory of evolution. One can have empirical observation but no general theory of evolution because the sequence of forms is a mystery; it just is there and you cannot explain it by any theory. The world cannot be explained. It is a mythical problem, so you have a strong element of myth in the theory of evolution.
So both the theoretical evolutionists and the fundamentalist theologians are illiterate. That level of illiteracy is taught in the text books as "two theories"—neither one of which is a theory.
Important to note that "myth" does not mean "wrong."
No, the point is show us a better scientific explanation for how we are here. You can't. Therefore with the way science goes, evolution stays.
What natural conditions? What experiments? What proof did those experiments give? Seems evolutionists are fast and furious at making broad statements but they are very slooooooow in backing them up.
No, his hatred of Jews had quite the Christian beginnings. He was simply continuing a centuries-old Christian tradition. He was, however, much more efficient than his previous Christian brethren.
Whether it does or it does not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that such changes are not the engine for macro-evolution. The changes in allele frequency change only small things. All humans have alleles that differ from all other humans, that is why each of us is a little bit different from each other. However, we are all the same species, we all function the same in spite of these different alleles because they do not change funtioning. Otherwise these changed alleles would destroy the functioning of the gene and result in either death or severe incapacity. For you to have macro-evolution, which is what is needed for man to have descended from one celled bacteria, you need new genes, new systems, and totally new functions. Change in allele frequency does not provide that.
Interesting reading, haven't seen those parts. Thank you.
While an idiot in predicting what will happen to the human race, Malthus would have been correct had he applied his thinking to animals. I remember the deer starving during winter because their population grew too much for the available food.
Darwin applying this principle to less developed societies of the time may be correct too, as they did not have the means to grow more, other than to have more land (the Boers in South Africa are a good example of the limits of expansion of a primitive population).
It is, of course, sheer folly to apply this concept to an industrialized society.
To get facts from you is like pulling teeth. Let's see the facts of when, how, where, what, who. Also, I fail to see how the "interstellar medium" could have a single bit of similarity with an already formed planet.
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.