The danger of worshipping Darwin

[RayMan]

Here is an excerpt from an interesting article I found on the BBC News website. I found it interesting in the light of the arguments we have around here as to whether Atheism is a belief system or not.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7924423.stm
-----------

The danger of worshipping Darwin

By Andrew Marr
Presenter, Darwin's Dangerous Idea
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/999999.gif

His vast brow hangs over us all. His foamy white beard cascades down in the familiar Michelangelo Old Testament style.

He speaks to mankind of ancient origins and end times.
In this year of his double anniversary, are we in danger of turning Charles Darwin if not into God, at least into the founder of a secular religion?

I'm a lapsed Presbyterian Christian. I had a blinding revelation of disbelief at the age of around 15.

It was every bit as clear and convincing as others describe revelations of faith.

Back then, I explained to the school chaplain that I could accept religion, but only as a metaphor - Heaven and Hell on Earth, that sort of thing.

Kindly but firmly, and rightly, he said that no, this would not be sufficient.

There's no doubt that Darwinism, and indeed scientific truth generally, can supply people like me with some of the nourishment religion offers.

Richard Dawkins wrote an excellent book, Unweaving the Rainbow, about this.

But aren't there also dangers in trying to replace religion with a secular equivalent?

[Amallek]

You convinced me.

The earth is 5,000 years old. Dinosaur bones were planted in the ground by Satan to confuse us.

[Meriweather]

You convinced me.

The earth is 5,000 years old. Dinosaur bones were planted in the ground by Satan to confuse us.

He didn't convince me that the earth is 5,000 years old or that dinosaur bones were planted in the ground by Satan to confuse us. I guess we Catholics have a sturdier mindset than atheists? ;)

[RayMan]

You convinced me.

The earth is 5,000 years old. Dinosaur bones were planted in the ground by Satan to confuse us.

Hey tell it to the BBC. I imagine you decided to go off half cocked rather than actually follow the link and read the story. Besides, I haven't made any remarks, just quoting the BBC.

Jump to conclusions much?

[Meriweather]

As for the OP, I noticed with interest the statement, "Scientific truth generally, can supply people like me with some of the nourishment religion offers."

Are scientific truths as nourishing as spiritual truths?

[RayMan]

Here's a bit more of the BBC story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7924423.stm

Churches to science
Late last year, during filming, I visited both the Kensington and Oxford University natural history museums.
A pair of magnificent buildings, they are startlingly and unmistakably like Christian cathedrals.
In Oxford, the delicate carvings of animals and plants entwine pillars and arches, while statues of scientists look like latter-day saints.
In London, Darwin himself presides over the nave, as Gothic, Venetian and Renaissance styles jostle round.


I've since learned, thanks to Sir David Attenborough, that the London building by Waterhouse was always meant to mimic a cathedral.
Its founder, Richard Owen, wanted the museum to be a "temple of nature" and when it opened, it was dubbed "the animals' Westminster Abbey".
But where is Owen's statue now? An enemy of Darwin, hustled away from the altar to make way for Charles D.
Though he coined the word dinosaur and was a remarkable fellow, he is generally cast out as a disbeliever, schismatic and bad egg.
And what are most sacred objects in Kensington? Well, bones, of course - not saints' bones, but bones collected by Darwin on his travels, a voyage which brings a whiff of pilgrimage to the tale.
One could go on in this fairly trivial way, and have plenty of fun with the comparison.

[RayMan]

Here is the rest of the BBC article before anyone else embarrasses themselves by jumping to illogical conclusions due to their failure to actually READ the article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7924423.stm


'Revelation'
Darwinism has its bishops and its schisms. There are Darwin cartoon books for children, not dissimilar in tone to blandly uplifting Sunday School booklets.
More significant, though, is that Darwinism, like a religion, offers both a method and a message.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45534000/jpg/_45534836_ca2nufa9.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/start_quote_rb.gif Darwinism underpins today's acceptance of the importance of the web of life http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif


It does not suggest prayerfulness or mantras, but it is grounded in the scientific method of observation, rigorous testing and peer group review.
It lays the groundwork for others to pick up and follow. Hardly unique to Darwin, of course, but its steady press-ahead of revelation makes the growth of Darwinists and Darwin-admirers inevitable.
As for its message, though you can believe in evolution while being sceptical about some aspects of ecological science, and while you can be both a creationist and worried about the current state of nature, Darwinism underpins today's acceptance of the importance of the web of life.
His work, for instance, on worms and coral reefs began to reveal the interconnectedness of apparently very distant life systems. And that paved the way for modern environmentalism.

With the Earth going through an unprecedented rate of species extinction now - the man-made so-called "sixth great extinction" - and with the threat from climate change, these are potent and urgent questions.
To deal with the consequences, we have to turn to scientific evidence, which will be brought to us by - yes - Darwinists.
Darwin showed not only that we originated in animal nature, but he also implied that if we damage nature too severely we might bring about our premature extinction.
There may have been no Darwinist Eden but there is certainly a Hell waiting for a species that makes the worst choices. And thus, back to my schoolboy metaphor.
A word of warning
So where is the danger?
I believe Darwin was right and that as science advances, he is proved more prescient, not less.
But religions are absolute. They bring their truth and then repel all boarders. They divide mankind into the saved and the ignorant damned.
In this story, there is no us and them. Darwinism, as I take it, is a creed of observation, fact, a deep modesty about conclusions and lifelong readiness to be proved wrong.
I don't say it offers everything that religion can. But I do say that, in this respect, it is better.
However we celebrate the old man, we mustn't let his work crust into creed or harden to dogma.
Darwin's Dangerous Idea, presented by Andrew Marr, is on Thursdays at 2100 GMT on BBC Two from 5 March.

[RayMan]

The article is not questioning the theory of evolution or Darwinism. The author obviously believes in evolution. He is questioning the wisdom of raising Darwinism to the level where it becomes a religion in all but name.

[Remus Lupin]

I do believe in the possibility of evolution. That don't mean I worship Darwin though.
I just think Darwin might be right on this one.

[biggles53]

As for the OP, I noticed with interest the statement, "Scientific truth generally, can supply people like me with some of the nourishment religion offers."

Are scientific truths as nourishing as spiritual truths?


Moreso, since they deal with what is real....

(but then you'd expect me to say that, right...?:))

[RayMan]

Moreso, since they deal with what is real....

(but then you'd expect me to say that, right...?:))

You are so darn predictable biggles.
G'day to you and G'night to me.

[Chuangtzu]

Darwinism is not atheism. That one man takes comfort in the grand connections he believes the scientific method demonstrates, does not mean that non-belief in God is a "belief system."

[orbitaldecay]

I think it's ironic that some worship Darwin. If they a better understanding of how scientific theories are formed, they might consider that it was many, many scientists who validated and sometimes corrected Darwin's hypothesis. And through all those studies and continued experimentation, they elevated it to a Theory (one of the strongest statements science can make)

[BrittleBullet]

:think:
I've never met anyone who worshiped Darwin. I have seen and met people who dismiss evolution, despite the more than 150+ years that have helped to prove and validate it, because it goes against the literal word of God however.

[European]

Saying Darwin wasn't right is like saying the earth is the center of the universe or the earth is flat.


:arrow:



:eek:I only belive in the Church of the flying spaghetti monster!:eek:

http://www.venganza.org/

Ramen
and may you forever be Touched by His Noodly Appendage.

[ralittlefield]

Saying Darwin wasn't right is like saying the earth is the center of the universe or the earth is flat.


:arrow:



:eek:I only belive in the Church of the flying spaghetti monster!:eek:

http://www.venganza.org/

Ramen
and may you forever be Touched by His Noodly Appendage.

So Darwin can make no mistakes? This post seems to prove the point of the OP.


Perhaps you have elevated Darwin higher than he belongs?

[Meriweather]

Moreso, since they deal with what is real....

(but then you'd expect me to say that, right...?:))


Once one experiences spiritual reality, it is physical reality that pales in comparison.

(I'm betting you already knew I was going to say this! :razz: )

[RayMan]

Saying Darwin wasn't right is like saying the earth is the center of the universe or the earth is flat.

:arrow:



:eek:I only belive in the Church of the flying spaghetti monster!:eek:

http://www.venganza.org/

Ramen
and may you forever be Touched by His Noodly Appendage.

The BBC article says nothing about Darwin not being right. Just the opposite if you were to actually read it. The author is a believer in evolution who is asking whether Darwin himself is being raised to the status of a Divinity.

[Tim]

The BBC article says nothing about Darwin not being right. Just the opposite if you were to actually read it. The author is a believer in evolution who is asking whether Darwin himself is being raised to the status of a Divinity.

Divinity? Heck, I didn't know he'd even made it to Saint or Pope yet! I really gotta try harder to keep up with current events...:frown:

[RayMan]

Divinity? Heck, I didn't know he'd even made it to Saint or Pope yet! I really gotta try harder to keep up with current events...:frown:

The Brits are apparently fast-tracking his standing as a major religious figure.

[Tim]

The Brits are apparently fast-tracking his standing as a major religious figure.

Above Sir Elton John? Say it isn't so!!!!:eek:

don't let the sun go down on me....

[Thank you Troops]

I feel for those that take the lie of evolution as truth without thinking for themselves, doing their own investigations, questioning their faith, and discounting any counter arguments with religous ferver.

It is not their fault for the most part because the world has embraced the evolution of all we see from a common ancestry and it teaches that from birth through college. If anyone questions that they are labeled religious, non deserving, a radical and anti-science. When nothing could be further from the truth. My experience is that intelligent design scientists work harder at uncoverning the truth and questioning the status quo beliefs as any scientists out there.

It's also interesting that it used to be good and proper to reject the authoritarian rule with it's absolutes, now those same people use the power of intimidation from leaders, lawyers, and the government in order to try to bring people in line with their beliefs.

[European]

The BBC article says nothing about Darwin not being right. Just the opposite if you were to actually read it. The author is a believer in evolution who is asking whether Darwin himself is being raised to the status of a Divinity.


My post was for everybody who says:God made us and we dont descend from ape's.

[Mikko]

Here is an excerpt from an interesting article I found on the BBC News website. I found it interesting in the light of the arguments we have around here as to whether Atheism is a belief system or not.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7924423.stm
-----------

The danger of worshipping Darwin

By Andrew Marr
Presenter, Darwin's Dangerous Idea
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/999999.gif

His vast brow hangs over us all. His foamy white beard cascades down in the familiar Michelangelo Old Testament style.

He speaks to mankind of ancient origins and end times.
In this year of his double anniversary, are we in danger of turning Charles Darwin if not into God, at least into the founder of a secular religion?

I'm a lapsed Presbyterian Christian. I had a blinding revelation of disbelief at the age of around 15.

It was every bit as clear and convincing as others describe revelations of faith.

Back then, I explained to the school chaplain that I could accept religion, but only as a metaphor - Heaven and Hell on Earth, that sort of thing.

Kindly but firmly, and rightly, he said that no, this would not be sufficient.

There's no doubt that Darwinism, and indeed scientific truth generally, can supply people like me with some of the nourishment religion offers.

Richard Dawkins wrote an excellent book, Unweaving the Rainbow, about this.

But aren't there also dangers in trying to replace religion with a secular equivalent?
People who accept the theory of evolution as a viable explanation for the data gathered via the documentation of phenomena observed in nature do not worship Darwin. Science is not the secular equivalent of religion. Apples and oranges.:)

[Mikko]

My post was for everybody who says:God made us and we dont descend from ape's.
1. Evolution does not hold that we descended from apes.
2. Believing that God made us does not preclude accepting the theory of evolution. God could very well have used the process of evolution as His/Her/Its means of creating our species.:)

[Mikko]

I feel for those that take the lie of evolution as truth without thinking for themselves, doing their own investigations, questioning their faith, and discounting any counter arguments with religous ferver.
Evolution is not a lie.It is not their fault for the most part because the world has embraced the evolution of all we see from a common ancestry and it teaches that from birth through college.
But those poor, weak-minded souls for whom you feel fall for it hook, line, and sinker.:)
If anyone questions that they are labeled religious, non deserving, a radical and anti-science. When nothing could be further from the truth. My experience is that intelligent design scientists work harder at uncoverning the truth and questioning the status quo beliefs as any scientists out there.
Proof, please?
They have to because they are a minority voice in a sea of accepting robots.
Insulting those with whom you disagree by calling them "robots" proves absolutely nothing.
It's also interesting that it used to be good and proper to reject the authoritarian rule with it's absolutes, now those same people use the power of intimidation from leaders, lawyers, and the government in order to try to being people in line with their beliefs.
If that's the case, could it be that those in the scientific community have learned from their counterparts in the religious community?:)

[Mikko]

The Brits are apparently fast-tracking his standing as a major religious figure.
Ah, our eccentric cousins in the UK are at it again!:)

[European]

1. Evolution does not hold that we descended from apes.
2. Believing that God made us does not preclude accepting the theory of evolution. God could very well have used the process of evolution as His/Her/Its means of creating our species.:)


Sure there could be a god that made us through the process of evolution.But then the bible would be wrong....and of course the bible is NEVER wrong:rolleyes:
Actually I mean how can any religion claim that they are right and that there's only Allah or any other god that created us.:arrow:WE WILL NEVER KNOW!And therefore I can also belive in the Flying Spagethi Monster or in the invisible pink unicorn...

God or religion is just a way for people to express there fear that the Human race is so small and meaningless in this whole universe and also Religions of course are there to transport values for those that cant make up their own..

"Life has no meaning a priori … It is up to you to give it a meaning, and value is nothing but the meaning that you choose."

[Thank you Troops]

Thanks for the correcton, I updated my post and apologize to anyone that was affended. An atheist showed me how to love and I am sticking to that. I made a vow that I would be nice to atheists.

[Buffalo]

People who accept the theory of evolution as a viable explanation for the data gathered via the documentation of phenomena observed in nature do not worship Darwin. Science is not the secular equivalent of religion. Apples and oranges.:)
Absolutely.

[RayMan]

Above Sir Elton John? Say it isn't so!!!!:eek:

don't let the sun go down on me....

It's true.

[RayMan]

My post was for everybody who says:God made us and we dont descend from ape's.

So you can't stay on track with the intent of the thread. That is your prerogative.

[bejnyc]

Thank You Troops....this is the biggest problem I have with the republican party...have been a Republican in the past, and left...and it is the religionious fanatics, who I felt so different from. Those who swear by Jesus Christ and have no tolerance for anyone elses religion are no better than the Islamic fascist who believe that Allah is the only prophet.

People dare to listen to things they disagree with, they'd rather have their own ideas reaffirmed rather than listening to other points of view, and forming on your own opinion.
I would invite anyone here to listen to Hannity as well as Olberman.

Listen to Limbaugh but watch Maher. If people werent so closed minded in their own ideas, maybe we could finally have some bi-partisan politics around the belt way

[James Juno]

Anyone who religiously worships another man or woman, dead or alive, has deeper problems of which the worshipping itself is merely a symptom.

Disclaimer: I am not ridiculing the worship of Jesus Christ nor any other figure believed to transcend the natural world. Darwin was not such a figure.

[Marleysdaddy]

The article is not questioning the theory of evolution or Darwinism. The author obviously believes in evolution. He is questioning the wisdom of raising Darwinism to the level where it becomes a religion in all but name.
(emphasis mine)

The emphasized portion will never be acceptable...Science thrives because it forbids dogmatism...period.

As we "speak", hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists are doing research which may yield results which overturn some or all of modern evolutionary theory.

That dynamism is one of the strengths of science...

[graatz]

It sounds like he's just found a fun, possibly profitable hook to grab the attention of both atheists and religious zealots. He even basically admits as such: "One could go on in this fairly trivial way, and have plenty of fun with the comparison." Our minds think in a way that makes it easy to see and accept parallels between the monuments of religion and the monuments of science. But that's all it really is. Darwinism isn't actually a religion once you get down to the nitty-gritty details. And it's in no real danger of being elevated to a religion.

[Herradura]

People by no means worship Darwin; they just worship the pigeon hole he created. The man knew less about a cell than a current high school student when he wrote”origin of the species” 150 years ago.

[Mikko]

(emphasis mine)

The emphasized portion will never be acceptable...Science thrives because it forbids dogmatism...period.

As we "speak", hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists are doing research which may yield results which overturn some or all of modern evolutionary theory.

That dynamism is one of the strengths of science...
Hey! Good to see you.:)

[smyrna]

You convinced me.

The earth is 5,000 years old. Dinosaur bones were planted in the ground by Satan to confuse us.

I'd bet it was the Lord so as to have a requirement of faith.

[smyrna]

As for the OP, I noticed with interest the statement, "Scientific truth generally, can supply people like me with some of the nourishment religion offers."

Are scientific truths as nourishing as spiritual truths?

It reassures pride in one's own knowledge.

[smyrna]

My post was for everybody who says:God made us and we dont descend from ape's.

He was talking to me RayMan.

[smyrna]

People who accept the theory of evolution as a viable explanation for the data gathered via the documentation of phenomena observed in nature do not worship Darwin. Science is not the secular equivalent of religion. Apples and oranges.:)

No group is without their zealots.

[RayMan]

He was talking to me RayMan.

I see...Then I blame you! :D

[smyrna]

I see...Then I blame you! :D

You sound like my wife:silenced:

[RayMan]

You sound like my wife:silenced:

A woman of great wisdom and perception no doubt.

[smyrna]

A woman of great wisdom and perception no doubt.

Evidenced by her spousal selection?:D

[RayMan]

Evidenced by her spousal selection?:D

Indubitably. If she had left it to natural selection there's no telling who she would have ended up with. :whistle:

[captusa]

So Darwin can make no mistakes? This post seems to prove the point of the OP.


Perhaps you have elevated Darwin higher than he belongs?

Darwin made lots of mistakes.
The assumption that natural variation supplied the differences that spurred evolutionary changes was a mistake..
He is not of the stature of Newton or Galieo or Einstein who also made mistakes.
BUT The possibility that species did not evolve from previous species is just as unlikely as all of Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity are completely in error and God just pulls down anything HE feels shouldn't be up.

[captusa]

Once one experiences spiritual reality, it is physical reality that pales in comparison.

(I'm betting you already knew I was going to say this! :razz: )

I could say the same thing about the spiritual reality one gets (has gotten) from a 250 micrograms Owsly Orange Sunshine.

[RayMan]

I could say the same thing about the spiritual reality one gets (has gotten) from a 250 micrograms Ously (sp.) Orange Sunshine.


Owsley Stanley. Affectionately known as Bear.

Grateful Dead Soundman for many years along with his pharmaceutical endeavours.

Left the Dead to manage Blue Cheer of Summertime Blues fame. Named that group after another type of acid he mixed up.

[gpd®]

Owsley Stanley. Affectionately known as Bear.

Grateful Dead Soundman for many years along with his pharmaceutical endeavours.

Left the Dead to manage Blue Cheer of Summertime Blues fame. Named that group after another type of acid he mixed up.

Tell me about "Purple Microdot."

[RayMan]

Tell me about "Purple Microdot."


Good old blotter acid. That brings back the memories. Wait...actually it doesn't.

"If you remember the '60s you weren't there."
Paul Kantner - Jefferson Airplane

[gpd®]

Good old blotter acid. That brings back the memories. Wait...actually it doesn't.

"If you remember the '60s you weren't there."
Paul Kantner - Jefferson Airplane

Hey, can't talk Darwin without talking Leary!:eek:

[captusa]

Owsley Stanley. Affectionately known as Bear.

Grateful Dead Soundman for many years along with his pharmaceutical endeavours.

Left the Dead to manage Blue Cheer of Summertime Blues fame. Named that group after another type of acid he mixed up.

When the feds found that out the pharmacutical pressed acid like Purple Owslys and Orange Sunshine disappeared from the market.
And the next generation (as noted) had to be saisfied with blotting paper.

[Scruffy]

1. Evolution does not hold that we descended from apes.
2. Believing that God made us does not preclude accepting the theory of evolution. God could very well have used the process of evolution as His/Her/Its means of creating our species.:)

Evolutionists believe that man evolved from an extinct ape, not an ape from present time, but an APE.

They are back peddling on this belief though, now they have a "theory" which basicly means "speculation" that maybe it is a half human, half ape species. There are many problems keeping evolution together. It's been falling apart. It is similar to a religion. Because it is just a belief and they protect and worship the theory as their creator. I read another post on a different thread saying that evolution is FACT. Well when did that happen? Where's this groundbreaking evidence they have found?

[Mikko]

Evolutionists believe that man evolved from an extinct ape, not an ape from present time, but an APE.
No, evolutionists believe that both apes and humans evolved from a primate, but not an ape.:)

They are back peddling on this belief though, now they have a "theory" which basicly means "speculation" that maybe it is a half human, half ape species.[/QUOTE]
1. There is no such thing, nor has there ever been, a "half-ape, half-human" species.
2. A theory is not speculation.
There are many problems keeping evolution together.
There are no problems whatsoever keeping evolution together.
It's been falling apart.
No, it hasn't. It's stronger than it's ever been.
It is similar to a religion.
No, it is not. It is science.
Because it is just a belief.
No, it isn't. It's a falsifiable theory that has been supported by 150 years worth of evidence.
I read another post on a different thread saying that evolution is FACT. Well when did that happen? Where's this groundbreaking evidence they have found?
As I said, evidence in support of evolution has been accumulating for 150 years.

[Scruffy]

Hi Mikko!

From the Webster Dictionary......

Theoretics: The speculative parts of a science.

[Mikko]

Hi Mikko!

From the Webster Dictionary......

Theoretics: The speculative parts of a science.
A theory is not speculation. Speculation is a guess. A theory is an explanation of observed data that is tested against evidence. There is a huge difference. Sorry, but you and Mr. Webster are mistaken.:)

[Scruffy]

A theory is not speculation. Speculation is a guess. A theory is an explanation of observed data that is tested against evidence. There is a huge difference. Sorry, but you and Mr. Webster are mistaken.:)

Can we name the dictionary after you? (Just kidding with you) :D

[Mikko]

Hi Mikko!

From the Webster Dictionary......

Theoretics: The speculative parts of a science.



From the Cambridge Dictionary:http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=82359&dict=CALD

noun [C or U]
a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas which are suggested to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation:
Bolding and underling mine.

A theory in science is not speculation in the popular sense of that word, which is a guess. The folks at Cambridge have it right.:)

[Mikko]

Can we name the dictionary after you? (Just kidding with you) :D
Don't have to. See my post #60.:)

[Scruffy]

Darwin had doubts about his own theory. Here are some honest statements from him:

Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? 1

But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? 2

Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. 3

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. 4

[Mikko]

Darwin had doubts about his own theory. Here are some honest statements from him:

Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? 1

But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? 2

Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. 3

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. 4

Assuming Darwin actually said those things (cite your source, please): He was a good scientist, and he recognized the weaknesses of this theory. All theories have weaknesses, especially in their early stages of development. Of course, much more research has been done in the geologic record in the 150 years since the theory's inception, and a great deal of fossil evidence has been found to support the theory. Along with evidence in biological science, the body of evidence that has been accumulated supports the theory quite soundly.:)

[Scruffy]

News Flash!! Late Breaking News!!

Primate is the same as orangutans, chimpanzees, bamboons, gorillas, etc.........

Soooooo Darwinism believes we evolved from ape.

I love the evolutionists play on words. It reminds me of Clinton saying, "It depends what the meaning of the word "is" is."

[Scruffy]

Assuming Darwin actually said those things (cite your source, please): He was a good scientist, and he recognized the weaknesses of this theory. All theories have weaknesses, especially in their early stages of development. Of course, much more research has been done in the geologic record in the 150 years since the theory's inception, and a great deal of fossil evidence has been found to support the theory. Along with evidence in biological science, the body of evidence that has been accumulated supports the theory quite soundly.:)

If I remember right, those are from his book, "Origin of Species".

[PercyVere]

I don't worship Darwin, but I do like to know the truth.

[Herradura]

If I remember right, those are from his book, "Origin of Species".

Yes, and furthermore Darwin knew in order for his theory to pan out that transitional forms had to be found mass quantities. In his time there were none. The current transitional fossil stockpile in support of evolution is pathetic.

[captusa]

Hi Mikko!

From the Webster Dictionary......

Theoretics: The speculative parts of a science.

You did not give the definition of theory,
This is the closest definition to the definition of a scientific theory.
5. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena - the wave theory of light
Several people have unsuccessfully tried to explain to you what a scientific theory is.
Citing a definition for theoretics does not definine a theory.
BTW My AOL version of Webster does not have the definition you cited.

[captusa]

News Flash!! Late Breaking News!!

Primate is the same as orangutans, chimpanzees, bamboons, gorillas, etc.........

Soooooo Darwinism believes we evolved from ape.

I love the evolutionists play on words. It reminds me of Clinton saying, "It depends what the meaning of the word "is" is."


All orangutans are primates.
All primates are not apes.

All humans are primates (biological definition)
All primates are not humans.

The present evolutionary theory opines that the evolutionarybranch that produced the orangutans, chimpanzees, bamboons, gorillas and other anthropoid apes seperated from somewhere before the tarsier (a primate).
The evidence has not changed that hypothesis for at least 50 years.

If evidence to the contrary is found and accepted that part of the theory would be changed.
If new evidence indicates humans descended from the same branch as the chimpanzee then you will be correct in saying evolutionists say humans are descended from apes.
Until that time, when you criticize the Theory of Evolution criticize what is Theory of Evolution.

[captusa]

Yes, and furthermore Darwin knew in order for his theory to pan out that transitional forms had to be found mass quantities. In his time there were none. The current transitional fossil stockpile in support of evolution is pathetic.

When did Darwin tell you that in order for his theory to pan out that transitional forms had to be found mass quantities ?
He never mentioned anything that preposterous to anyone else.

[captusa]

News Flash!! Late Breaking News!!

Primate is the same as orangutans, chimpanzees, bamboons, gorillas, etc.........

Soooooo Darwinism believes we evolved from ape.

I love the evolutionists play on words. It reminds me of Clinton saying, "It depends what the meaning of the word "is" is."

PRIMATE IS NOT THE SAME AS orangutans, chimpanzees, bamboons, gorillas, ETC..

orangutans are primates
chimpanzees are primates
bamboons are primates
gorillas are primates

That is not the same as saying:
Primate is the same as orangutans, chimpanzees, bamboons, gorillas

Are you really using this as a logical arguement.
By your "logic"
Since
Man is a biped.
storks are bipeds
gorillas are bipeds
Ducks are bipeds
Biped is the same as man, storks, gorilla, ducks, etc.

Who is playing on words and who is completely misrepresenting the meaning of "is".

[RayMan]

PRIMATE IS NOT THE SAME AS orangutans, chimpanzees, bamboons, gorillas, ETC..

orangutans are primates
chimpanzees are primates
bamboons are primates
gorillas are primates

That is not the same as saying:
Primate is the same as orangutans, chimpanzees, bamboons, gorillas

Are you really using this as a logical arguement.
By your "logic"
Since
Man is a biped.
storks are bipeds
gorillas are bipeds
Ducks are bipeds
Biped is the same as man, storks, gorilla, ducks, etc.

Who is playing on words and who is completely misrepresenting the meaning of "is".

One of you guys need to tell me what the heck a "bamboon" is.

[captusa]

One of you guys need to tell me what the heck a "bamboon" is.

A loud baboon.
Do I have to explain everything to you ?

[Scruffy]

You did not give the definition of theory,
This is the closest definition to the definition of a scientific theory.
5. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena - the wave theory of light
Several people have unsuccessfully tried to explain to you what a scientific theory is.
Citing a definition for theoretics does not definine a theory.
BTW My AOL version of Webster does not have the definition you cited.

My definition came from a hard cover Webster dictionary published in 1960, given to me by my uncle.

[Scruffy]

When did Darwin tell you that in order for his theory to pan out that transitional forms had to be found mass quantities ?
He never mentioned anything that preposterous to anyone else.

In his book, see post #62.

[captusa]

My definition came from a hard cover Webster dictionary published in 1960, given to me by my uncle.

Why did you copy the definition for theoretics and not the definition of theory ?

[captusa]

Originally Posted by captusa
When did Darwin tell you that in order for his theory to pan out that transitional forms had to be found mass quantities ?
He never mentioned anything that preposterous to anyone else.
In his book, see post #62.

Here is the conversation:Yes, and furthermore Darwin knew in order for his theory to pan out that transitional forms had to be found mass quantities. In his time there were none. The current transitional fossil stockpile in support of evolution is pathetic.


from#62
Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed.


Have existed is not the same as transitional forms had to be found in mass quantities.

Darwin did not say that fossils of transitional forms had to be found in great quantites.

[PercyVere]

Yes, and furthermore Darwin knew in order for his theory to pan out that transitional forms had to be found mass quantities. In his time there were none. The current transitional fossil stockpile in support of evolution is pathetic. Aren't all fossils transitional?

[PercyVere]

Hi Mikko!

From the Webster Dictionary......

Theoretics: The speculative parts of a science.Quick definitions (theoretics)

# (n.) The speculative part of a science; speculation.

(This definition is from the 1913 Webster's Dictionary and may be outdated.)

Love it ... 1913 ... ha ha ha

[captusa]

Aren't all fossils transitional?

Try to explain that to Herradura.
I was dealing with anyone claiming fossils would be found in mass quantities.

[RayMan]

A loud baboon.
Do I have to explain everything to you ?

My bad. Sorry. :doh::redface:

[Herradura]

I was dealing with anyone claiming fossils would be found in mass quantities.

Fossils have been found in mass quantities. The problem is they are all complete forms with apparent functional parts. It would be most helpful if the existing transitional fossils displayed appendages such as a stub of a wing or leg.

[PercyVere]

Fossils have been found in mass quantities. The problem is they are all complete forms with apparent functional parts.You see that as a 'problem'? Why? I would expect all fossils to exhibit complete and functional parts, except for vestigial parts.

It would be most helpful if the existing transitional fossils displayed appendages such as a stub of a wing or leg.The Archaeopteryx wing is rather differnt than a modern bird wing. Also, what makes you think the wing developed as a wing stub?

As for the lack of fossils, the hollow and brittle bones of birds are not that likely to survive as fossils. Nevertheless, more and more fossils are coming to light all the time. One day we'll find the transitional fossil you are asking for, then you will want to see the transitionals between the transitionals.

[Herradura]

Here is the conversation:




Have existed is not the same as transitional forms had to be found in mass quantities.

Darwin did not say that fossils of transitional forms had to be found in great quantites.

Oh, but he did....

"...as this process of extermination [survival of the fittest] has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." [1]



1. Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species London: John Murray, 1859, p.280.

[Herradura]

One day we'll find the transitional fossil you are asking for, then you will want to see the transitionals between the transitionals.

Until you have more than a dinosaur, an archaeopteryx and a bird, there will be problems…

[PercyVere]

Until you have more than a dinosaur, an archaeopteryx and a bird, there will be problems… Problems? Is the shortage of bird fossils the reason science has now rejected evolution as an explanation of bird diversity? Or what problems do you refer to?

[Mike Griffith]

There are other lines of evidence to support evolution other than fossils, genetics for example.

Genetics???!!! If anything, genetics refute evolution, unless you believe in Lady Luck to a degree that goes far beyond tenable. If anything, genetics scream design. It's only been in the last few decades that mankind was smart enough to even understand the incredible complexity involved with genetics.

Evolution has no logical, plausible answer as to how genetic code would have come to be written by random processes when much of that code initially would have provided no advantage, and when no one, or no thing, could have known that the code would be of any future use. Yet, "somehow" "natural selection" "just happened" to "select". . . . oh, please. It's a fairy tale.

[Mike Griffith]

You know, it's so funny that liberals tend to idolize Darwin, when Darwin was, well--how shall we say it?--RACIST, to put it mildly. Said Darwin:

Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Everyone who has had the opportunity of comparison must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes. (The Descent of Man, 1874)

My, my, my. In fact, Darwin actually hoped that the civilized races would, and I quote, "exterminate" the "savage" ones. Said Darwin:

At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (Ibid., 1874, p. 178).

Darwin's good buddy and fellow evolutionist Thomas Huxley said:

No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out on by thoughts and not by bites (Addresses and Reviews, 1871, p. 20).

And let's not forget that Darwin accepted and admired the work of another ardent racist, Francis Galton, the father of eugenics, who regarded blacks as barely human, who argued that "genius" was inherited, who advocated racial breeding to produce good "stock," etc., etc. Said Darwin in The Descent of Man, "we now know, through the admirable labours of Mr Galton, that genius . . . tends to be inherited." The "admirable labors" of "Mr. Galton" indeed! Take a look at some of Galton's "admirable labors":

http://creation.com/eugenics-death-of-the-defenceless
http://www.squidoo.com/eugenics
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/racism-history.shtml

[captusa]

Fossils have been found in mass quantities. The problem is they are all complete forms with apparent functional parts. It would be most helpful if the existing transitional fossils displayed appendages such as a stub of a wing or leg.

Or hips on a snake.
vestigial legs on whales
vestigial organs like appendixes and tail bones on humans.

[captusa]

You know, it's so funny that liberals tend to idolize Darwin, when Darwin was, well--how shall we say it?--RACIST, to put it mildly. Said Darwin:

Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Everyone who has had the opportunity of comparison must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes. (The Descent of Man, 1874)

My, my, my. In fact, Darwin actually hoped that the civilized races would, and I quote, "exterminate" the "savage" ones. Said Darwin:

At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (Ibid., 1874, p. 178).

Darwin's good buddy and fellow evolutionist Thomas Huxley said:

No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out on by thoughts and not by bites (Addresses and Reviews, 1871, p. 20).

And let's not forget that Darwin accepted and admired the work of another ardent racist, Francis Galton, the father of eugenics, who regarded blacks as barely human, who argued that "genius" was inherited, who advocated racial breeding to produce good "stock," etc., etc. Said Darwin in The Descent of Man, "we now know, through the admirable labours of Mr Galton, that genius . . . tends to be inherited." The "admirable labors" of "Mr. Galton" indeed! Take a look at some of Galton's "admirable labors":

http://creation.com/eugenics-death-of-the-defenceless
http://www.squidoo.com/eugenics
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/racism-history.shtml

Jefferson made similar comments on Negroes and I consider him to be a hero.
The fact that Huxley and Darwin subscribed to the racial opinions of the day has nothing to do with his work on Evolution.
Remember the term "The White Man's Burden".
Are you going to take away Shockley's Nobel prize and stop using transistors because of Shockley's racist publication.
He stated statistics proved that Whites were intellectually superior to Blacks and "Yellows"were intellectually superior to Whites.

[captusa]

Oh, but he did....

"...as this process of extermination [survival of the fittest] has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." [1]



1. Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species London: John Murray, 1859, p.280.

I guess you failed to notice or read the last line of the post you cited.
The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

Darwin is pointing out why the absense of a vast number of transitional species DOES NOT DISPROVE HIS THEORY.
You have shown excellent evidence that Darwin did not believe that finding vast numbers of transitional species was necessary to justify his theories.
I suggest rather than just cut and paste to support your points in the future you READ first then cut and paste.

[flowercopter]

At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (Ibid., 1874, p. 178).




Darwin witnessed 1st had the extermination of the Tasmanians, and genocide commited against S.American tribes and Austrailian tribes.

When he says "they will no doubt be exterminated" he was not saying he condoned this, he was makeing a prediction--one that in many parts of the world came true.

Please read Voyage of the Beagle.

how here is an example of something Darwin actually DID hope for:

"I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it. I was told before leaving England, that after living in slave countries: all my options would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the Negros character. It is impossible to see a negro & not feel kindly toward him; such cheerful, open honest expressions & such fine muscular bodies; I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Haiti; & considering the enormous healthy looking black population, it will be wonderful if at some future day it does not take place." -- Charles Darwin to Catherine Darwin

[Herradura]

I guess you failed to notice or read the last line of the post you cited.


Darwin is pointing out why the absense of a vast number of transitional species DOES NOT DISPROVE HIS THEORY.
You have shown excellent evidence that Darwin did not believe that finding vast numbers of transitional species was necessary to justify his theories.
I suggest rather than just cut and paste to support your points in the future you READ first then cut and paste.





LOL… If evolution was happing for millions of years on a grand scale there would be “mountains” of fossilized evidence, extreme imperfection of the geological record not withstanding.

Darwin made an erroneous assumption and blamed it on geology when he had no proof that was even true.

Also, I will not clip and hide information that may be contrary to my case. I read that line; to have removed it would have been dishonest.

[Herradura]

There are other lines of evidence to support evolution other than fossils, genetics for example.

Not that ties those examples together.

[captusa]

Fossils have been found in mass quantities. The problem is they are all complete forms with apparent functional parts. It would be most helpful if the existing transitional fossils displayed appendages such as a stub of a wing or leg.

Check out the contents of all the human cemetaries in the world an see if any have vestigial tail bones.
That should give you some evidence of transitional species.

[captusa]

LOL… If evolution was happing for millions of years on a grand scale there would be “mountains” of fossilized evidence, extreme imperfection of the geological record not withstanding.

Darwin made an erroneous assumption and blamed it on geology when he had no proof that was even true.

Also, I will not clip and hide information that may be contrary to my case. I read that line; to have removed it would have been dishonest.

Your contention was:Yes, and furthermore Darwin knew in order for his theory to pan out that transitional forms had to be found mass quantities.

You posted evidence that Darwin DID NOT BELIEVE in order for his theory to pan out that transitional forms had to be found mass quantities.

You do not accept his reasons but Darwin DID NOT BELIEVE in order for his theory to pan out that transitional forms had to be found mass quantities.

[flowercopter]

Darwin witnessed 1st had the extermination of the Tasmanians, and genocide commited against S.American tribes and Austrailian tribes.

When he says "they will no doubt be exterminated" he was not saying he condoned this, he was makeing a prediction--one that in many parts of the world came true.

Please read Voyage of the Beagle.

how here is an example of something Darwin actually DID hope for:

"I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it. I was told before leaving England, that after living in slave countries: all my options would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the Negros character. It is impossible to see a negro & not feel kindly toward him; such cheerful, open honest expressions & such fine muscular bodies; I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Haiti; & considering the enormous healthy looking black population, it will be wonderful if at some future day it does not take place." -- Charles Darwin to Catherine Darwin

actually, if Memory serves me right, there was a thread here awhile back that said we can't trust Darwin because he was too much of an abolitionist.

[Herradura]

Check out the contents of all the human cemetaries in the world an see if any have vestigial tail bones.
That should give you some evidence of transitional species.

The tail bone in humans is not vestigial. It serves a very important function. You see, without it humans wouldn’t be able to stop themselves from dropping a load in their pants.

[Herradura]

Your contention was:

You posted evidence that Darwin DID NOT BELIEVE in order for his theory to pan out that transitional forms had to be found mass quantities.

You do not accept his reasons but Darwin DID NOT BELIEVE in order for his theory to pan out that transitional forms had to be found mass quantities.

That is not true, and I don't believe you have offered any information other than your opinion that supports your assumptions.

[captusa]

That is not true, and I don't believe you have offered any information other than your opinion that supports your assumptions.

Are you saying Darwin did not say that NOT finding great quantities of fossilized transitional forms was due to "the extreme imperfection of the geological record".
How could he say that his theory required vast amounts of transitional forms when he explains why great quantities of fossilized transitional forms were not found ?

[Herradura]

Are you saying Darwin did not say that NOT finding great quantities of fossilized transitional forms was due to "the extreme imperfection of the geological record".
How could he say that his theory required vast amounts of transitional forms when he explains why great quantities of fossilized transitional forms were not found ?

Until you have significant transitional fossils and not one stuffed in between two species that are millions of years apart all you're going to have are assumptions. Don’t’ blame in on geology as if somehow that was going to support any theories.

You could put any fossil in there, that is the fallacy with evolution, give it enough time and anything works, no need proof, you have time…

[captusa]

Until you have significant transitional fossils and not one stuffed in between two species that are millions of years apart all you going to have are assumption. Don’t’ blame in on geology as if somehow that was going to support any theories.

You could put any fossil in there, that is the fallacy with evolution, give it enough time and anything works, no need proof, you have time…

We were discussing what Darwin SAID about the absense of fossils of transitional forms.
Not whether his reason for the absense of transitional forms was valid.
I believe that was explained to you by another poster.

[Herradura]

We were discussing what Darwin SAID about the absense of fossils of transitional forms..

I said “Yes, and furthermore Darwin knew in order for his theory to pan out that transitional forms had to be found mass quantities. In his time there were none."

Darwin said “...as this process of extermination [survival of the fittest] has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

I’ll say it again for the record: Darwin knew in order for his theory to pan out that transitional forms had to be found in mass quantities.

His pathetic pea about the geological record does NOT negate the fact, by his own admission, what a lack of intermediate links would do to his assumptions.
Not whether his reason for the absense of transitional forms was valid..

It was validated by his admission. Like a said earlier in this thread, people to not worship Darwin, just the pigeon hole he created, and blindly so...

I believe that was explained to you by another poster.

It was not explained by any stretch of the imagination…

[Mike Griffith]

I said “Yes, and furthermore Darwin knew in order for his theory to pan out that transitional forms had to be found mass quantities. In his time there were none.[/COLOR]"[/SIZE]

Darwin said “...as this process of extermination [survival of the fittest] has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

I’ll say it again for the record: Darwin knew in order for his theory to pan out that transitional forms had to be found in mass quantities.

His pathetic pea about the geological record does NOT negate the fact, by his own admission, what a lack of intermediate links would do to his assumptions.

It was validated by his admission. Like a said earlier in this thread, people to not worship Darwin, just the pigeon hole he created, and blindly so...

It was not explained by any stretch of the imagination…

Good poiints. Darwinists have had to do all sorts of polemical gymnastics and special pleading to explain the Cambrian Explosion and the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record in general.

Another point that can be made is that Darwin was embarrassingly wrong about cells. He thought cells were "simple," that life went from simple to complex. Of course, we know now that he was abjectly wrong. Little did he know that biochemical life is staggeringly complex, complete with biochemical machines that defy any evolutionary explanation.

I'm still waiting for an evolutionist to explain how "natural selection" (which is really a rather silly tautology) would/could have selected components that provided no advantage at the time but that would later, when combined in just the right sequence with other compoents, form useful biochemical machines. When you push them on this, and after they hemm and haw all over Kentucky, you get their answer--that it was a remarkable coincidence, an amazingly fortunate random selection (never mind that this violates the core assumption of natural selection, i.e., that it selects only those things that provide an advantage or that serve a necessary purpose).

[captusa]

Until you have significant transitional fossils and not one stuffed in between two species that are millions of years apart all you're going to have are assumptions. Don’t’ blame in on geology as if somehow that was going to support any theories.

You could put any fossil in there, that is the fallacy with evolution, give it enough time and anything works, no need proof, you have time…

By your standards no one should accept the nativity or the crucifixion without video tapes.
AND
1: This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2: Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3: And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
4: And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
6: And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
7: And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
8: And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
9: And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:
10: And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
11: And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
12: And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel:
13: And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:
14: And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.

And of course there would be no reason to believe the above until we find the bodies of

Adam and
Seth and
Enos and
Cainan and
Mahalaleel and ....
And if you found Adam, Seth, Enos and not Cainan then there would be a gap that can't be explained so no reason to believe the rest.
Just applying your evidentual requirements for Evolution.

[Gem]

Here is an excerpt from an interesting article I found on the BBC News website. I found it interesting in the light of the arguments we have around here as to whether Atheism is a belief system or not.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7924423.stm
-----------

The danger of worshipping Darwin

By Andrew Marr
Presenter, Darwin's Dangerous Idea
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/999999.gif

His vast brow hangs over us all. His foamy white beard cascades down in the familiar Michelangelo Old Testament style.

He speaks to mankind of ancient origins and end times.
In this year of his double anniversary, are we in danger of turning Charles Darwin if not into God, at least into the founder of a secular religion?

I'm a lapsed Presbyterian Christian. I had a blinding revelation of disbelief at the age of around 15.

It was every bit as clear and convincing as others describe revelations of faith.

Back then, I explained to the school chaplain that I could accept religion, but only as a metaphor - Heaven and Hell on Earth, that sort of thing.

Kindly but firmly, and rightly, he said that no, this would not be sufficient.

There's no doubt that Darwinism, and indeed scientific truth generally, can supply people like me with some of the nourishment religion offers.

Richard Dawkins wrote an excellent book, Unweaving the Rainbow, about this.

But aren't there also dangers in trying to replace religion with a secular equivalent?

Who would want to worship this guy ? I wonldn't .

[captusa]

Good poiints. Darwinists have had to do all sorts of polemical gymnastics and special pleading to explain the Cambrian Explosion and the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record in general.

Another point that can be made is that Darwin was embarrassingly wrong about cells. He thought cells were "simple," that life went from simple to complex. Of course, we know now that he was abjectly wrong. Little did he know that biochemical life is staggeringly complex, complete with biochemical machines that defy any evolutionary explanation.

I'm still waiting for an evolutionist to explain how "natural selection" (which is really a rather silly tautology) would/could have selected components that provided no advantage at the time but that would later, when combined in just the right sequence with other compoents, form useful biochemical machines. When you push them on this, and after they hemm and haw all over Kentucky, you get their answer--that it was a remarkable coincidence, an amazingly fortunate random selection (never mind that this violates the core assumption of natural selection, i.e., that it selects only those things that provide an advantage or that serve a necessary purpose).

It is obvious you have never read or understood the theory of evolution or the concept of natural selection or geology or anthropology or...


And of course Darwin made mistakes and did not have the knowledge of cell structure that was available to later scientists.
Louis Pasteur made mistakes about viruses (or viri)
Newton made mistakes about light.
Archimedes miscalculated Pi by more than .005
Erostothenes miscalculated the circumference of the Earth by 500 miles (circa 500 B.C.E.)
It is just that no reasonable evidence has come to light that contradicts the basic concept that species evolved from previous species.
150+ years

[captusa]

Who would want to worship this guy ? I wonldn't .

I do not know of anyone who worships Darwin.
Darwin was a signifigant scientist but he was no Einstein and I do not worship Einstein.

Darwin was a signifigant scientist but he was no Archimedes and I do not worship Archimedes and I do not worship Einstein.

Darwin was a signifigant scientist but he was no Gauss and I do not worship Gauss

Darwin was a signifigant scientist but he was no Leibnitz and I do not worship Leibnitz.

Whom do you know who worships Darwin ?

Darwin was a signifigant scientist but he wasw no Einstein and I do not worship Einstein

[biggles53]

Hmmmm....insufficient "transitional fossils"..??

Check out this list just in the series from fish to amphibians:

Osteolepis

Eusthenopteron

Panderichthys

Tiktaalik

Elginerpeton

Obruchevichthys

Acanthostega

Ichthyostega

Hynerpeton

Tulerpeton

Pederpes

Eryops

Can I also point out that evolutionary theory predicted the existence of Tiktaalik, even before it was discovered!

Now, would anyone like to see the whale series.....?

[hben]

Here is an excerpt from an interesting article I found on the BBC News website. I found it interesting in the light of the arguments we have around here as to whether Atheism is a belief system or not.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7924423.stm
-----------

The danger of worshipping Darwin

By Andrew Marr
Presenter, Darwin's Dangerous Idea
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/999999.gif

His vast brow hangs over us all. His foamy white beard cascades down in the familiar Michelangelo Old Testament style.

He speaks to mankind of ancient origins and end times.
In this year of his double anniversary, are we in danger of turning Charles Darwin if not into God, at least into the founder of a secular religion?

I'm a lapsed Presbyterian Christian. I had a blinding revelation of disbelief at the age of around 15.

It was every bit as clear and convincing as others describe revelations of faith.

Back then, I explained to the school chaplain that I could accept religion, but only as a metaphor - Heaven and Hell on Earth, that sort of thing.

Kindly but firmly, and rightly, he said that no, this would not be sufficient.

There's no doubt that Darwinism, and indeed scientific truth generally, can supply people like me with some of the nourishment religion offers.

Richard Dawkins wrote an excellent book, Unweaving the Rainbow, about this.

But aren't there also dangers in trying to replace religion with a secular equivalent?

The story goes that Darwin was known for his famous quote that he supposedly uttered right after hearing his first sermon as a young man. He found himself almost in a state of shock at what he had heard quoted from the first chapter of Genesis. Scratching his head in disbelief, he was quoted as saying, "Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle."

BELIEVE IT OR NOT!!! :razz: :whistle: :cool:

[captusa]

The tail bone in humans is not vestigial. It serves a very important function. You see, without it humans wouldn’t be able to stop themselves from dropping a load in their pants.


Explain please ?
How does the tail bone prevent incontinence ?

[Values]

Hmmmm....insufficient "transitional fossils"..??

Check out this list just in the series from fish to amphibians:

Osteolepis

Eusthenopteron

Panderichthys

Tiktaalik

Elginerpeton

Obruchevichthys

Acanthostega

Ichthyostega

Hynerpeton

Tulerpeton

Pederpes

Eryops

Can I also point out that evolutionary theory predicted the existence of Tiktaalik, even before it was discovered!

Now, would anyone like to see the whale series.....?

13 transitions?
What happened to the other 49,987 that would be needed minimum????

[Herradura]

By your standards no one should accept the nativity or the crucifixion without video tapes.
AND


And of course there would be no reason to believe the above until we find the bodies of

Adam and
Seth and
Enos and
Cainan and
Mahalaleel and ....
And if you found Adam, Seth, Enos and not Cainan then there would be a gap that can't be explained so no reason to believe the rest.
Just applying your evidentual requirements for Evolution.




Is this post supposed to support all your previous retorts in this thread? I hope not..

[Herradura]

Hmmmm....insufficient "transitional fossils"..??

Check out this list just in the series from fish to amphibians:

Osteolepis

Eusthenopteron

Panderichthys

Tiktaalik

Elginerpeton

Obruchevichthys

Acanthostega

Ichthyostega

Hynerpeton

Tulerpeton

Pederpes

Eryops

Can I also point out that evolutionary theory predicted the existence of Tiktaalik, even before it was discovered!

Now, would anyone like to see the whale series.....?

This is a joke. If evolution was happening worldwide for millions and millions of years you would have thousands and thousands of transitional forms.

In addition, I think what you meant to say was that these are examples of species that could have evolved into tetrapods. Tetrapods are amphibians, reptiles, mammals or birds. All the examples are from the Devonian period, except the last two. Now, which of your examples evolved into an amphibian, which were mammal, reptile, bird, etc.?
Don't know? Didn't think so...

[biggles53]

13 transitions?
What happened to the other 49,987 that would be needed minimum????


How do you arrive at that number...?

[biggles53]

This is a joke. If evolution was happening worldwide for millions and millions of years you would have thousands and thousands of transitional forms.

In addition, I think what you meant to say was that these are examples of species that could have evolved into tetrapods. Tetrapods are amphibians, reptiles, mammals or birds. All the examples are from the Devonian period, except the last two. Now, which of your examples evolved into an amphibian, which were mammal, reptile, bird, etc.?
Don't know? Didn't think so...


I can't believe that one would forward an argument with such ferocity based on such poor understanding...

Indeed, there must have been many more "transitional forms", as evolution is a very slow and gradual process (even during its 'speedier' times...). How exactly would you suggest that we would identify those 'forms' which had only incrementally evolved from a previous one?

Let me give you an example:

You are a 'transitional'. Between your parents and your children (if you have them). There are mutations in your genetic make-up which make you unique from either of them (I'm hazy here, but I seem to remember that somewhere between 5-20 mutations is within the normal range).

But, how would you sugest that someone, in examining your fossilised remains in a million years or so, would recognise the 'differences' between you all.

They wouldn't, would they? They would simply classify you as the same species. It wouldn't be until enough 'differences' had accumulated that they would be able to make a comparison between you and you distant ancestors (or your distant descendants).

And your second question is pure nonsense..and I think you know it. Evolutionary theory does NOT posit that one group in that lineage went on to become mammals, while a separate group became birds, etc.

[Values]

I can't believe that one would forward an argument with such ferocity based on such poor understanding...

Indeed, there must have been many more "transitional forms", as evolution is a very slow and gradual process (even during its 'speedier' times...). How exactly would you suggest that we would identify those 'forms' which had only incrementally evolved from a previous one?

Let me give you an example:

You are a 'transitional'. Between your parents and your children (if you have them). There are mutations in your genetic make-up which make you unique from either of them (I'm hazy here, but I seem to remember that somewhere between 5-20 mutations is within the normal range).

But, how would you sugest that someone, in examining your fossilised remains in a million years or so, would recognise the 'differences' between you all.

They wouldn't, would they? They would simply classify you as the same species. It wouldn't be until enough 'differences' had accumulated that they would be able to make a comparison between you and you distant ancestors (or your distant descendants).

And your second question is pure nonsense..and I think you know it. Evolutionary theory does NOT posit that one group in that lineage went on to become mammals, while a separate group became birds, etc.

You assume (incorrectly and with an obvious bias) that transitioning from a human to a human is the same as transitioning from a fish to a lizard, or a lizard to a dog. There would need to be many transitional creatures that have massive differences. These differences would have measurable distinct changes and there would need to be thousands and thousands of each different creature with millions of each change once having roamed the Earth.
Where are they?
Darwin himself said that without these there is no way his own theory would hold up. It hasn't and it doesn't.

[Values]

How do you arrive at that number...?

It has been estimated that you would need at least 50,000 transitional creatures to go from a sea dwelling beast to a four legged land dweller ( or vice versa as evolutionists would also have you believe)

[RayMan]

I should have known when I created it that posters in this thread wouldn't stay on topic. Since it has devolved into the typical creationism/evolution argument I intend to ask the Mods to move it to GIT.

[Values]

I should have known when I created it that posters in this thread wouldn't stay on topic. Since it has devolved into the typical creationism/evolution argument I intend to ask the Mods to move it to GIT.

Your assumption that darwinism has become a religion hits too close to the mark.

[hben]

I should have known when I created it that posters in this thread wouldn't stay on topic. Since it has devolved into the typical creationism/evolution argument I intend to ask the Mods to move it to GIT.

Well, then GIT er done, Ray. :lol:

[Marleysdaddy]

It has been estimated that you would need at least 50,000 transitional creatures to go from a sea dwelling beast to a four legged land dweller ( or vice versa as evolutionists would also have you believe)

Estimated by whom? Can you provide some more information on this estimate?

[RayMan]

Your assumption that darwinism has become a religion hits too close to the mark.


I made no such assumption. I post a BBC News article that suggested the possibility. Unfortunately most folk around here don't seem to have the self control to stick with the OP rather than getting off into their ususal Creationism vs Evolution rants.

[Marleysdaddy]

You assume (incorrectly and with an obvious bias) that transitioning from a human to a human is the same as transitioning from a fish to a lizard, or a lizard to a dog.

He is not incorrect...the mechanisms are exactly the same...the time involved is what differs.

[Values]

He is not incorrect...the mechanisms are exactly the same...the time involved is what differs.

Really?
You actually want to say that the maturation of a human from child to adult is the same as evolutionary species changing?

Really?

[Marleysdaddy]

The final paragraph

So where is the danger?

I believe Darwin was right and that as science advances, he is proved more prescient, not less.

But religions are absolute. They bring their truth and then repel all boarders. They divide mankind into the saved and the ignorant damned.
This is why some scientists (on these forums and elsewhere) try to be very careful with language and avoid giving the impression that an idea/hypothesis/theory in science could ever become absolute
In this story, there is no us and them. Darwinism, as I take it, is a creed of observation, fact, a deep modesty about conclusions and lifelong readiness to be proved wrong.
The emphasized portion is something of which many scientists should remind themselves more frequently...one of my first biology professors tried to change our way of looking at to a point where we would actually be happy and excited when we were forced to accept our null hypothesis :D
I don't say it offers everything that religion can. But I do say that, in this respect, it is better.

However we celebrate the old man, we mustn't let his work crust into creed or harden to dogma.
Humans can not allow science to become dogmatic...the results would be disastrous.

[Values]

I made no such assumption. I post a BBC News article that suggested the possibility. Unfortunately most folk around here don't seem to have the self control to stick with the OP rather than getting off into their ususal Creationism vs Evolution rants.

Old views spill over.
Evolution is a money maker for many in the scientific community.

[Marleysdaddy]

Really?
You actually want to say that the maturation of a human from child to adult is the same as evolutionary species changing?

Really?

No...maturation is not at all what Biggles was talking about...he wrote

You are a 'transitional'. Between your parents and your children (if you have them). There are mutations in your genetic make-up which make you unique from either of them (I'm hazy here, but I seem to remember that somewhere between 5-20 mutations is within the normal range).

[Marleysdaddy]

Evolution is a money maker for many in the scientific community.

Disproving evolutionary theory would be a MUCH bigger money maker...

[captusa]

Is this post supposed to support all your previous retorts in this thread? I hope not..

It is to show that your claim that it is necessary to find the succession of antecedents to accept a theory.
Like the geneations of the patriarchs.
It

[Values]

Disproving evolutionary theory would be a MUCH bigger money maker...

Study what micro-biology has been learning as of late.
Evolution doesn't need to be disproved, it fell on it's own.

[Marleysdaddy]

From the article

But aren't there also dangers in trying to replace religion with a secular equivalent?

I take issue with several ideas Marr puts forth with this sentence (perhaps because of his choice of words)

1) No one of whom I am aware is trying to "replace" religion with Evolutionary theory. For me (and I'd imagine many others) the two concepts occupy two distinct and distant aspects of my life and beliefs.

2) "Equivalent"...I don't see evolutionary theory as a secular equivalent of religion

specific beliefs within evolutionary theory are decided by experiment and a consensus of investigators and are open to revision
specific beliefs within religion are decided by a single author or perhaps a small council, and for many people, are not open to revision

[PercyVere]

Darwin is certainly a hero of mine, primarily because he developed what is quite possibly the single most important human idea of all time. Mind you, there are other heores in science too ... Newton, Einstein, Pasteur ...

But these men are heroes ... just heroes, not some god-like figures. There is no hint of worshipping these men. Darwin didn't replace religion with a secular equivalent, he replaced ignorance with knowledge. How is that a bad thing?

In any case, the truth about evolution was well on the its to being uncovered in Darwin's time ... he just managed to get the credit for it. The truth would have come out with or without his help.

No, there is no worship of Darwin. There is certainly a mild pleasure to be derived in shoving his craggy bearded face in front of creationists, but that is nothing akin to worship.

[PercyVere]

For me (and I'd imagine many others) the two concepts occupy two distinct and distant aspects of my life and beliefs.a + bi ?

[PercyVere]

Study what micro-biology has been learning as of late.
Evolution doesn't need to be disproved, it fell on it's own.Got links or proof to back this claim up?

[captusa]

It has been estimated that you would need at least 50,000 transitional creatures to go from a sea dwelling beast to a four legged land dweller ( or vice versa as evolutionists would also have you believe)

There are some transitional creatures that have not become extinct.
Platypus, echinda, mudskipper, lung fish....

And how was the estimate of 50,000 arrived at.
It couldn't have been estimated by a creationist because they don't believe in transitional creatures.
And over the period of 2 to 3 billion years that would mean one transitional creature every 4o,ooo to 6o,ooo years.
Not an unreasonable length of time.

[captusa]

I can't believe that one would forward an argument with such ferocity based on such poor understanding...

Indeed, there must have been many more "transitional forms", as evolution is a very slow and gradual process (even during its 'speedier' times...). How exactly would you suggest that we would identify those 'forms' which had only incrementally evolved from a previous one?

.......

Would you expect a ferocious argument based on good understanding ?

[captusa]

You assume (incorrectly and with an obvious bias) that transitioning from a human to a human is the same as transitioning from a fish to a lizard, or a lizard to a dog. There would need to be many transitional creatures that have massive differences. These differences would have measurable distinct changes and there would need to be thousands and thousands of each different creature with millions of each change once having roamed the Earth.
Where are they?
Darwin himself said that without these there is no way his own theory would hold up. It hasn't and it doesn't.

Darwin explained why that was not true.
Read was Herradura posted.
The vast majority of beings are not fossilized.
As Darwin phrased it "the extreme imperfection of the geological record"..

[Values]

Darwin explained why that was not true.
Read was Herradura posted.
The vast majority of beings are not fossilized.
As Darwin phrased it "the extreme imperfection of the geological record"..

Darwin threw out a possible reason why there had not been anything to date. Since then there is still such a huge amount of dead space where there should be many, many skeletal evidences. This is in a time when dinosaurs have been found everywhere and have been readily discovered. Darwin would be forced to re-evaluate his theory, yet scientists plunge on with their head down and ears plugged.

[badkarma]

Old views spill over.
Evolution is a money maker for many in the scientific community.
This argument could just as well be used in reverse. I wonder how much money is lost by the various churches that disavow evolution?

[Marleysdaddy]

This is in a time when dinosaurs have been found everywhere and have been readily discovered.

You are vastly underestimating the difficulties of paleontology.

[Greyclouds]

Study what micro-biology has been learning as of late.
Evolution doesn't need to be disproved, it fell on it's own.

Oh man, you just chose the one field of Biology that is completely and utterly contingent on the Theory of Evolution (apart from Evolutionary Biology, of course)!

I found this one recent article that completely defeats your assertion handily, though I would be VERY happy to explain the mechanisms and methods to you if you are interested!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19260970?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Summary: Frequent use of anti-biotics has caused Human commensal microbial communities to adopt a more "mutation-prone" system of adaptation. In other words, our use of antibiotics has caused an "arms race" of mutations in bacteria! They are taking more risks with their genomes (adopting more mobile genetic elements, deleting DNA repair mechanisms, etc) in order to find more genes that grant resistance to the common antibiotics that we use.

Microbiology was the wrong field to choose as an example, I'm sorry to say.

[Herradura]

I can't believe that one would forward an argument with such ferocity based on such poor understanding...

I’m so sick of this type canned response. Do they teach you to say that in school when you don’t know what else to say?

I’ll say it again; people to not worship Darwin, just the pigeon hole he created. You demonstrate this fact perfectly in your accusations about the understanding of others when you yourself have little. Ridicule will not help your religion achieve additional merits, nor will your self-preserving statements.

[Herradura]

Summary: Frequent use of anti-biotics has caused Human commensal microbial communities to adopt a more "mutation-prone" system of adaptation. In other words, our use of antibiotics has caused an "arms race" of mutations in bacteria! They are taking more risks with their genomes (adopting more mobile genetic elements, deleting DNA repair mechanisms, etc) in order to find more genes that grant resistance to the common antibiotics that we use.

This is not a good example to explain how the organic popped out of the inorganic in the form of a cell, and then evolved into every living thing on this planet.

To make a claim like that using adaption, which only applies to a single species at any given time is a dreamlike, faith demanding exercise. Adaption within a species is not proof that one species can evolve into another.

I believe the use of micro biology in the discussion was directed at the complexity of a cell and how evolution NEVER addresses how it just popped out of a primordial soup. He did not mean the study of living organisms on a microscopic level as it may pertain to bacteria. Obviously species can adapt, that is not in question.

[King Cantona]

He didn't convince me that the earth is 5,000 years old or that dinosaur bones were planted in the ground by Satan to confuse us. I guess we Catholics have a sturdier mindset than atheists? ;)

Yeah I'm a Catholic and I KNOW there were dinosaurs 64 million years ago, anyone who sincerely believes they have all the answers is wrong.......

[King Cantona]

The fact that someone says they know everything doesn't negate what they are saying. You need to look at the evidence they are citing to come to a conclusion.

For example; I know it all because the bible says so compared to I know it all because I have observerd, measured, calculated, predicted, etc with science and the evidence points to 'blah'.

What's more credible?

Neither, anyone who is SURE he knows all the answers only proves himself to be arrogant.......

I believe in evolution but I also believe in a deity, some might say I'm dumb but no one who calls me dumb actually knows any more than I do for sure......

[biggles53]

I’m so sick of this type canned response.



Then, for Thor's sake, LEARN ABOUT THE THING BEFORE YOU ATTEMPT TO CRITICISE IT!!!

[biggles53]

This is not a good example to explain how the organic popped out of the inorganic in the form of a cell, and then evolved into every living thing on this planet.

To make a claim like that using adaption, which only applies to a single species at any given time is a dreamlike, faith demanding exercise. Adaption within a species is not proof that one species can evolve into another.

I believe the use of micro biology in the discussion was directed at the complexity of a cell and how evolution NEVER addresses how it just popped out of a primordial soup. He did not mean the study of living organisms on a microscopic level as it may pertain to bacteria. Obviously species can adapt, that is not in question.

You see... you moan that people keep criticising your poor understanding, but then you keep 'feeding' us with fresh examples of it! Evolutionary theory has nothing, NOTHING, to say about the manner in which life arose - whether it "popped out of prinordial soup" or "evolved from a rock", both of which you have repeated several times!

If you're going to try to criticise it, then criticise what it really IS...not some concoction of yours or some dishonest creationist website...:rolleyes:

[Herradura]

You see... you moan that people keep criticising your poor understanding, but then you keep 'feeding' us with fresh examples of it! Evolutionary theory has nothing, NOTHING, to say about the manner in which life arose - whether it "popped out of prinordial soup" or "evolved from a rock", both of which you have repeated several times!

Apparently you are having trouble with the basic concept that it impossible to get life from the lifeless. That is my push, and has been from the beginning. Jumble the words and definitions to your heart’s content, it only shows a lack of understanding of what drives your own beliefs.


If you're going to try to criticise it, then criticise what it really IS...not some concoction of yours or some dishonest creationist website...:rolleyes:

Very foolish of you to assume such a thing, but you are consistent, assuming much about “nuttin”.

[Herradura]

Then, for Thor's sake, LEARN ABOUT THE THING BEFORE YOU ATTEMPT TO CRITICISE IT!!!

You split hairs constantly about definition, and word meaning instead of focusing on the concepts of this discussion. That is typical of someone who worships the delusions of Darwin.

[gwhughes]

It won't be a religion until someone says his name in vain, Darwindamn it!

[RayMan]

It won't be a religion until someone says his name in vain, <blasphemy of Darwin>

Nicely done hughes. :D

[badkarma]

You split hairs constantly about definition, and word meaning instead of focusing on the concepts of this discussion. That is typical of someone who worships the delusions of Darwin.
It is not splitting hairs to ask that when you debate a certain topic or theory that you actually stick to that theory. You can't come to a debate about evolution and then mix it up with abiogenesis and then complain when people point out that you are incorrectly combining theories that are completely unrelated.

There are only 2 possible solutions to your mixing up these 2 theories. the first is that you are simply uneducated on them and that you are debating in ignorance. The second is that you are purposefully misconstruing the theories in an effort to muddle up the debate and swing people to your beliefs. I leave the choice up to you as to which of those 2 options describes what you are doing.

[PercyVere]

You split hairs constantly about definition, and word meaning instead of focusing on the concepts of this discussion. That is typical of someone who worships the delusions of Darwin.Was the book called "On the Origin of life" ... or "On the Origin of Species"?

[gwhughes]

Nicely done hughes. :D

And 0 guilt. Now I see how people who don't believe in God can go around dropping gd's all day. :)

[Greyclouds]

This is not a good example to explain how the organic popped out of the inorganic in the form of a cell, and then evolved into every living thing on this planet.

To make a claim like that using adaption, which only applies to a single species at any given time is a dreamlike, faith demanding exercise. Adaption within a species is not proof that one species can evolve into another.

I believe the use of micro biology in the discussion was directed at the complexity of a cell and how evolution NEVER addresses how it just popped out of a primordial soup. He did not mean the study of living organisms on a microscopic level as it may pertain to bacteria. Obviously species can adapt, that is not in question.

"Complexity" of a cell?

Bacterial cells are not very complex in terms of organization and surface area/cell volume ratios.

You can essentially define a bacterial cell as a bleb of lipid surrounding a mix of bound amino acids and nucleic acids. Lets see what forces are needed to associate these components:

1. Lipids. Phosopholipids are amiphipathic (they have a polar and non-polar end on the same molecule) and arrange themselves automatically (and undirected by any forces) into "bubbles" when they encounter water molecules. Since this is basic Chemistry I will not provide a source link (I think the scientific papers on this topic predate the 20th century too!), but would be happy to explain this further if you still have questions.

2. Nucleic acids. Since nucleotides are composed of phosphates attached to sugar molecules, their electronegative poles actually encourage nucleophilic attacks automatically (basic Organic Chemistry; again, an offer to explain if you have questions). Again, this is an automatic association. Scientists have discovered that RNA molecules can serve as reaction catalysts in the absence of proteins (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19243011?ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum), and it is common knowledge that all RNA codons code for the same (mostly) amino acids in all lifeforms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code#RNA_codon_table).

3. Peptides. Amino acids are zwitter ions at neutral pH (they have both positive and negative ends to the molecule). Just in the same way that nucleotides automatically associate over time (again, basic organic chemistry), so too can amino acids form chains of peptides resulting in proteins. Since I've just shown that RNA/DNA can serve as basic enzymes and can form a sort of "scaffolding" for proteins (for evidence of this, please review the ribosome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosome#Structure), it is not too much of a stretch to theorize how useful protein sequences could be replicated without intelligent force directing their association.

Self-organization of all of the molecular components of a cell greatly reduces the chance that such an event required intelligent direction. In fact, Occam's razor dictates that intelligent direction is unnecessary to the system and must be discarded as a possibility.

[Herradura]

It is not splitting hairs to ask that when you debate a certain topic or theory that you actually stick to that theory. You can't come to a debate about evolution and then mix it up with abiogenesis and then complain when people point out that you are incorrectly combining theories that are completely unrelated.

There are only 2 possible solutions to your mixing up these 2 theories. the first is that you are simply uneducated on them and that you are debating in ignorance. The second is that you are purposefully misconstruing the theories in an effort to muddle up the debate and swing people to your beliefs. I leave the choice up to you as to which of those 2 options describes what you are doing.

Good post.

However, there is a third solution. I am pointing out impossibilites in all your theories.

Something from nothing, particles to planets, planets to people, exists only on paper. Those concepts do not exist in the real world and there is not a shred observable data to support such claims.

Stay in the lab until you have proof, and stop force feeding a conflagration of terms to the public as if somehow that was going to help bridge the massive holes that need to be filled with all your theories. Until you have this proof there will be objectors, don’t keep bashing them over the head with your lack of data, accusing a lack of understanding. Get the proof…

If you truly understood your own beliefs you would see the gaps and know that insurmountable proof was needed to tie all your dreams together. If you have faith in your concepts please disregard my comments….

[Greyclouds]

Just as an addition to this post:

http://exploringorigins.org/nucleicacids.html

This website is an excellent source of material on the RNA-world hypothesis, and it references up-to-date information about what we know about Molecular Biology.

It provides examples of RNA self-organization and enzymatic activity too (which is always cool in my book :cool: ).

[badkarma]

Good post.

However, there is a third solution. I am pointing out impossibilites in all your theories.
Which you are doing by jumbling them all into 1. For example, take this earlier post where you were replying to someone about evolution...
Apparently you are having trouble with the basic concept that it impossible to get life from the lifeless.
You took 2 completely different theories, evolution and abiogenesis, and mashed them together. Then you took what you believe to be a fact that disproves one theory and applied it to both theories as if those cherry picked ideas and facts actually fit both theories regardless of where they come from.

Basically what you are doing would be the same as if I said you can not put water into a cars gas tank and make it run, therefore putting water on grass will not make it grow.
Something from nothing, particles to planets, planets to people, exists only on paper. Those concepts do not exist in the real world and there is not a shred observable data to support such claims.
Please show me the single theory that starts with nothing and ends with people.
If you truly understood your own beliefs you would see the gaps and know that insurmountable proof was needed to tie all your dreams together. If you have faith in your concepts please disregard my comments….
I am not arguing individual theories with you, just pointing out the fallacy in your arguments. For example, here in this paragraph you state that insurmountable amount of proof is needed to prove these various theories. You are saying that there is no way enough evidence could possibly be gathered in order to convince you that these theories have merit. If you are so close minded that you are unwilling to even consider such possibilities, then how can you ever expect others to consider any counter theories or ideas that you propose or champion?

[Herradura]

"Complexity" of a cell?

Bacterial cells are not very complex in terms of organization and surface area/cell volume ratios.

You can essentially define a bacterial cell as a bleb of lipid surrounding a mix of bound amino acids and nucleic acids. Lets see what forces are needed to associate these components:

1. Lipids. Phosopholipids are amiphipathic (they have a polar and non-polar end on the same molecule) and arrange themselves automatically (and undirected by any forces) into "bubbles" when they encounter water molecules. Since this is basic Chemistry I will not provide a source link (I think the scientific papers on this topic predate the 20th century too!), but would be happy to explain this further if you still have questions.

2. Nucleic acids. Since nucleotides are composed of phosphates attached to sugar molecules, their electronegative poles actually encourage nucleophilic attacks automatically (basic Organic Chemistry; again, an offer to explain if you have questions). Again, this is an automatic association. Scientists have discovered that RNA molecules can serve as reaction catalysts in the absence of proteins (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19243011?ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum), and it is common knowledge that all RNA codons code for the same (mostly) amino acids in all lifeforms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code#RNA_codon_table).

3. Peptides. Amino acids are zwitter ions at neutral pH (they have both positive and negative ends to the molecule). Just in the same way that nucleotides automatically associate over time (again, basic organic chemistry), so too can amino acids form chains of peptides resulting in proteins. Since I've just shown that RNA/DNA can serve as basic enzymes and can form a sort of "scaffolding" for proteins (for evidence of this, please review the ribosome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosome#Structure), it is not too much of a stretch to theorize how useful protein sequences could be replicated without intelligent force directing their association.

Self-organization of all of the molecular components of a cell greatly reduces the chance that such an event required intelligent direction. In fact, Occam's razor dictates that intelligent direction is unnecessary to the system and must be discarded as a possibility.

I know you are very well versed Grayclouds, and I am not disputing your assertions about adaption. Adaption has been proven. What I’m asking you is how a cell (or bacteria) popped out of a jumble of compounds (there is no proof for this). And,,, please do not pull DNA/RNA out of a hat like you did in items 2 & 3 when you explain.

We know that compounds and living things have a self-organizing element, but that does not explain the source of the mechanism that drives these self-organizing systems nor has it been proven that they self-organize without new input or information.

[Marleysdaddy]

I know you are very well versed Grayclouds, and I am not disputing your assertions about adaption. Adaption has been proven. What I’m asking you is how a cell (or bacteria) popped out of a jumble of compounds (there is no proof for this). And,,, please do not pull DNA/RNA out of a hat like you did in items 2 & 3 when you explain.
There will never be "proof" for it...science doesn't generate proof that something is certainly true, it generates evidence that something is likely true

We know that compounds and living things have a self-organizing element, but that does not explain the source of the mechanism that drives these self-organizing systems nor has it been proven that they self-organize without new input or information.
Why would you suppose that there would have been no new input or information? The sun inputs enormous amounts of energy constantly.

[Marleysdaddy]

Something from nothing, particles to planets, planets to people, exists only on paper. Those concepts do not exist in the real world and there is not a shred observable data to support such claims.
That statement is false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#.22Soup.22_theory_today:_Miller.27s_ex periment_and_subsequent_work

[Herradura]

I am not arguing individual theories with you, just pointing out the fallacy in your arguments.

No fallacies here, just a naysayer that wants more proof.

For example, here in this paragraph you state that insurmountable amount of proof is needed to prove these various theories.

Yes, until the filibuster of words and paper stops, and scientific observation starts it just may be insurmountable.

You are saying that there is no way enough evidence could possibly be gathered in order to convince you that these theories have merit.

No. Only that someone would acknowledge there are gaps that need to be filled with observable proof.

If you are so close minded that you are unwilling to even consider such possibilities, then how can you ever expect others to consider any counter theories or ideas that you propose or champion?

Not close minded, just skeptical. I submit the same question to you about whether there is the “possibility” of an intelligent designer. If we can both admit that there is a “possibility” of the others views, then we can find common ground for further discussion.

[Marleysdaddy]

Originally Posted by Greyclouds
Summary: Frequent use of anti-biotics has caused Human commensal microbial communities to adopt a more "mutation-prone" system of adaptation. In other words, our use of antibiotics has caused an "arms race" of mutations in bacteria! They are taking more risks with their genomes (adopting more mobile genetic elements, deleting DNA repair mechanisms, etc) in order to find more genes that grant resistance to the common antibiotics that we use.

This is not a good example to explain how the organic popped out of the inorganic in the form of a cell, and then evolved into every living thing on this planet.


Greyclouds wasn't using it as "a good example to explain how the organic popped out of the inorganic in the form of a cell"...he was using it as an example of the mechanism of natural selection causing evolution in a population (and it is a very good example of that).

It is not a good example of abiogenesis, but that isn't what Values was discussing

Originally Posted by Values
Evolution doesn't need to be disproved, it fell on it's own.
(emphasis mine)

[Herradura]

That statement is false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#.22Soup.22_theory_today:_Miller.27s_ex periment_and_subsequent_work

The statement represents your belief system in a nutshell. The statement is neither true, nor is it false.

[Marleysdaddy]

The statement represents your belief system in a nutshell. The statement is neither true, nor is it false.

To keep the discussion intelligible, let's assume we're operating within the confines of classical logic
where only two truth values are possible ('true' and 'false')

You wrote
there is not a shred observable data to support such claims.
There is observable data which support ideas of abiogenesis...I provided a link to it.
Thus, your statement is false.


But to end the derail, lets discuss things that were Darwin's contributions to evolutionary theory - natural selection foremost among them.

[Herradura]

Greyclouds wasn't using it as "a good example to explain how the organic popped out of the inorganic in the form of a cell"...he was using it as an example of the mechanism of natural selection causing evolution in a population (and it is a very good example of that).

It is not a good example of abiogenesis, but that isn't what Values was discussing

(emphasis mine)

Values has his own discussion points.

Take your timeline and apply your theories, these represent the sum of all your beliefs as they pertain to origins.

I am addressing the basis for a person’s belief in origins and that one might think there is no possible way a creator could have been involve in the mix. If you take out a creator, and go on pure science, you have to prove it in the light with eyes wide open, not in a mountain of opinion that is not backed up the observable data.

[Marleysdaddy]

I am addressing the basis for a person’s belief in origins and that one might think there is no possible way a creator could have been involve [sic] in the mix.
I know of no one who claims "there is no possible way a creator could have been involve [sic] in the mix"...Could you direct me to a link where a poster claims this?
If you take out a creator, and go on pure science, you have to prove it in the light with eyes wide open, not in a mountain of opinion that is not backed up the observable data.
There are many competing ideas of abiogenesis, and most of them have at least some observable data supporting them. The nine models in the link I provided are all supported by various observable data.

The current Theory of Gravity, on the other hand, is based on hypothetical (read: non-observable) particles called 'gravitons' - is the theory of gravity based upon a mountain of opinion?

[Greyclouds]

I know you are very well versed Grayclouds, and I am not disputing your assertions about adaption. Adaption has been proven. What I’m asking you is how a cell (or bacteria) popped out of a jumble of compounds (there is no proof for this). And,,, please do not pull DNA/RNA out of a hat like you did in items 2 & 3 when you explain.

I explained how the basic macromolecules essential to life self-organize without directed force; doesn't that directly answer your question?

Taken in tandem with the Miller-Urey experiments (which prove that such components CAN form in simulations of the Early Earth atmosphere), this is data that supports the hypothesis that self-organizing macromolecules can result in proto-lifeforms.

Given that the organic chemistry mechanisms are simple and reproducible without reaction catalysts, nucleic acids CAN be created from free-floating organic molecules! Also, their polymerization occurs without any intelligent input into the system.

Does that make sense? I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you have about anything I've said in the past two posts.


We know that compounds and living things have a self-organizing element, but that does not explain the source of the mechanism that drives these self-organizing systems nor has it been proven that they self-organize without new input or information.

You have moved the goalposts significantly then.

If you believe that God (or whatever deity you subscribe to) created all the rules of the universe in the beginning, then that is an ok belief (it is the "God of the Gaps" theory). However, if you argue from the point of incredulity that such complexity is not possible in nature, you actually have a significant issue with Chemistry and Physics in addition to Biology. I mean, you're attacking basic mechanisms in both fields in that case!

Gibbs free energy does alot of things in the Chemical world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy

[Herradura]

To keep the discussion intelligible, let's assume we're operating within the confines of classical logic
where only two truth values are possible ('true' and 'false').

If the statement is false then you have a problem with your belief system.

You wrote

There is observable data which support ideas of abiogenesis...I provided a link to it.
Thus, your statement is false.

There you go again trying to proof a concept on a knee jerk. For your next trick will you be pulling billions of galaxies out of your hat?


But to end the derail, lets discuss things that were Darwin's contributions to evolutionary theory - natural selection foremost among them.

If I used your logic and applied it to the fact that Darwin had no knowledge of the workings of a cell we can negate any truth to his theories.

[Greyclouds]

Values has his own discussion points.

Take your timeline and apply your theories, these represent the sum of all your beliefs as they pertain to origins.

I am addressing the basis for a person’s belief in origins and that one might think there is no possible way a creator could have been involve in the mix. If you take out a creator, and go on pure science, you have to prove it in the light with eyes wide open, not in a mountain of opinion that is not backed up the observable data.

Perhaps you're mistaking my use of Occam's razor here.

The ability of an unaided natural system to provide the complexity of self-assembling macromolecules necessary for life does not necessarily exclude spiritual forces; it makes them unnecessary for the end products to result.

Its much like running an electric current through a filament to make light (a light bulb). You could claim these two things simultaneously: 1) God wills the filament to radiate light, and 2) Electrons passing through the resistance of the filament generate energy which is lost as radiation, heat and light.

They are not mutually exclusive properties, though couldn't a person argue that the filament would produce light in such conditions WITHOUT God's intervention? Seems pretty redundant that God designed the physical laws to occur in such a way, but that he himself must also micromanage such laws, no?

[Marleysdaddy]

If the statement is false then you have a problem with your belief system.
I showed a simple argument in logic that proved your statement false.

There you go again trying to proof a concept on a knee jerk. For your next trick will you be pulling billions of galaxies out of your hat?
Nope - that was a proof using observable premises and deduction

If I used your logic and applied it to the fact that Darwin had no knowledge of the workings of a cell we can negate any truth to his theories.[/QUOTE]Can you explain this? To draw a parallel position, would you argue that since Newton had no knowledge of the workings of a graviton, we can negate any of the truths of his Universal Gravitation?

[Marleysdaddy]

Perhaps you're mistaking my use of Occam's razor here.

The ability of an unaided natural system to provide the complexity of self-assembling macromolecules necessary for life does not necessarily exclude spiritual forces; it makes them unnecessary for the end products to result.

Its much like running an electric current through a filament to make light (a light bulb). You could claim these two things simultaneously: 1) God wills the filament to radiate light, and 2) Electrons passing through the resistance of the filament generate energy which is lost as radiation, heat and light.

They are not mutually exclusive properties, though couldn't a person argue that the filament would produce light in such conditions WITHOUT God's intervention? Seems pretty redundant that God designed the physical laws to occur in such a way, but that he himself must also micromanage such laws, no?

Spoken like a true deist...well put :clap:

[Greyclouds]

If I used your logic and applied it to the fact that Darwin had no knowledge of the workings of a cell we can negate any truth to his theories.

No, because the elucidation of Cellular and Molecular Biology actually supports some of Darwin's hypotheses. Other hypotheses (such as his nod to Lamarckian inheritance) have been discredited by such findings.

We keep what works and reform it if necessary. We discard what is not demonstrable.

[Greyclouds]

Spoken like a true deist...well put :clap:

Thank you :)

Far too often am I cut by Occam's razor though, by my own beliefs :))

[Herradura]

Miller-Urey experiments (which prove that such components CAN form in simulations of the Early Earth atmosphere), this is data that supports the hypothesis that self-organizing macromolecules can result in proto-lifeforms.

Millers work has not continued as it should have. The data he came up with was really inconclusive if it is to support how a cell popped out of the sludge. By no means does it support the possibility of life forms, only compounds. Life from no life is impossible… (Unless it’s proven)

However, if you argue from the point of incredulity that such complexity is not possible in nature, you actually have a significant issue with Chemistry and Physics in addition to Biology.

Grayclouds,
I said that I do not dispute the adaption, it has been proven. Adaption does not take us across the river of “evolution”.

[Marleysdaddy]

I said that I do not dispute the adaption, it has been proven. Adaption does not take us across the river of “evolution”.
Can you propose a mechanism that would prevent continued adaptation from proceeding to the point of speciation?

[Herradura]

I showed a simple argument in logic that proved your statement false.

No, you did no such thing.


Nope - that was a proof using observable premises and deduction

Deduction is where it all caves in on your head...

Can you explain this? To draw a parallel position, would you argue that since Newton had no knowledge of the workings of a graviton, we can negate any of the truths of his Universal Gravitation?

Spin away, your groping...

[Marleysdaddy]

No, you did no such thing.
You claimed there were no observable data supporting abiogenesis.
I provided a link to observable data supporting abiogenesis.
Can you explain how that was not a simple refutation of your claim?

Deduction is where it all caves in on your head...
Spin away, your groping...

Let's avoid the ad hominem comments, please.

[Greyclouds]

Millers work has not continued as it should have. The data he came up with was really inconclusive if it is to support how a cell popped out of the sludge. By no means does it support the possibility of life forms, only compounds. Life from no life is impossible… (Unless it’s proven)

Well, we have discovered the following:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19119229?ordinalpos=6&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Nucleotides DO self-assemble, and can replicate themselves through complementary base pairing.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19266471?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Peptides can also self-assemble in certain environmental conditions.


So, the presence of nucleotides and amino acids in the Urey-Miller broth actually could have assembled into polymers if given enough time (remember, the timeline is several billions of years).

Oh, and they HAVE identified RNA molecules that ACT UNDER NATURAL SELECTION to reproduce themselves! This is a really really cool article, and I'd highly recommend that you read it if you can!

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1167856



Grayclouds,
I said that I do not dispute the adaption, it has been proven. Adaption does not take us across the river of “evolution”.

Adaptation (or more appropriately, "Natural Selection") IS the cornerstone of Evolutionary Theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation

To say that inherited Genetic/Epigenetic changes do not accumulate in a population of organisms (Natural Selection), but that inherited Genetic changes never result in new "species" (Speciation) doesn't make sense.

Your distinction is an imaginary limit to a logical system.

It's like saying that dropping pebbles into a pitcher of water will never cause some of the water to spill over the sides.

[Marleysdaddy]

To say that inherited Genetic/Epigenetic changes do not accumulate in a population of organisms (Natural Selection), but that inherited Genetic changes never result in new "species" (Speciation) doesn't make sense.

Your distinction is an imaginary limit to a logical system.

It's like saying that dropping pebbles into a pitcher of water will never cause some of the water to spill over the sides.

What a fantastic example of how compounded minute changes cause large changes! Seriously dude, you need to think about being a biology professor. (and I'm stealing all your good examples ;) )

[badkarma]

Not close minded, just skeptical. I submit the same question to you about whether there is the “possibility” of an intelligent designer. If we can both admit that there is a “possibility” of the others views, then we can find common ground for further discussion.
there is no evidence whatsoever to disprove the existence of a God or an intelligent designer. That means that yes, i will gladly grant the possibility of such, just as i will grant the possibility of anything that can not be disproven.

Regardless, that is neither here nor there as it pertains to what I am telling you in this thread. What you are doing is mixing and matching various theories, cherry picking ideas from them, and then squashing them back together into a completely fictitious Frankensteinian conglomeration of a theory. You then take this bastardized abomination, which was created completely in your imagination, and tell everyone how it can not possibly be right.

Until you stop doing that, there can be no common ground, as you will be continuously debating this issue based on a lie that you completely made up and then managed to attribute to the very people you wish to debate against.

[Marleysdaddy]

there is no evidence whatsoever to disprove the existence of a God or an intelligent designer. That means that yes, i will gladly grant the possibility of such, just as i will grant the possibility of anything that can not be disproven.

Regardless, that is neither here nor there as it pertains to what I am telling you in this thread. What you are doing is mixing and matching various theories, cherry picking ideas from them, and then squashing them back together into a completely fictitious Frankensteinian conglomeration of a theory. You then take this bastardized abomination, which was created completely in your imagination, and tell everyone how it can not possibly be right.

Until you stop doing that, there can be no common ground, as you will be continuously debating this issue based on a lie that you completely made up and then managed to attribute to the very people you wish to debate against.

There's a reason 'straw man' is one of the most employed fallacies on these forums...:think:

[Mobulis]

there is no evidence whatsoever to disprove the existence of a God or an intelligent designer. That means that yes, i will gladly grant the possibility of such, just as i will grant the possibility of anything that can not be disproven.

Regardless, that is neither here nor there as it pertains to what I am telling you in this thread. What you are doing is mixing and matching various theories, cherry picking ideas from them, and then squashing them back together into a completely fictitious Frankensteinian conglomeration of a theory. You then take this bastardized abomination, which was created completely in your imagination, and tell everyone how it can not possibly be right.

Until you stop doing that, there can be no common ground, as you will be continuously debating this issue based on a lie that you completely made up and then managed to attribute to the very people you wish to debate against.

You mean there's no evidence to "prove" the existence of a God or an intelligent designer. You can't prove a negative.

[Arya]

Here is an excerpt from an interesting article I found on the BBC News website. I found it interesting in the light of the arguments we have around here as to whether Atheism is a belief system or not.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7924423.stm
-----------

The danger of worshipping Darwin

By Andrew Marr
Presenter, Darwin's Dangerous Idea
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/999999.gif

His vast brow hangs over us all. His foamy white beard cascades down in the familiar Michelangelo Old Testament style.

He speaks to mankind of ancient origins and end times.
In this year of his double anniversary, are we in danger of turning Charles Darwin if not into God, at least into the founder of a secular religion?

I'm a lapsed Presbyterian Christian. I had a blinding revelation of disbelief at the age of around 15.

It was every bit as clear and convincing as others describe revelations of faith.

Back then, I explained to the school chaplain that I could accept religion, but only as a metaphor - Heaven and Hell on Earth, that sort of thing.

Kindly but firmly, and rightly, he said that no, this would not be sufficient.

There's no doubt that Darwinism, and indeed scientific truth generally, can supply people like me with some of the nourishment religion offers.

Richard Dawkins wrote an excellent book, Unweaving the Rainbow, about this.

But aren't there also dangers in trying to replace religion with a secular equivalent?

"Worshipping Darwin"?

Didn't know he was a God. :lol:

Honestly-this is more sensationalism over a scientific theory (Darwins) that hold some truths (mutations, natural selection, etc) while others are not readily proveable. This article is another attempt to try to argue that Evolution is attempting to replace religion-while, again, it does nothing of the sort.

In many ways-Evolution very well could be explaining the how, behind God's creations (life forms-and how they survive in an ever changing environments over time).

In other words-science and scientific principles overall may not be teaching anything "anti" God, but rather, are actually describing the "how" behind the interworkings of our universe. A universe, that may have been created by a higher being.

[Arya]

Question to all:

What if the existence of God was proven-through the use of scientific evidence? Evidences that overwhelmingly prove that God does exist?

Would science-the same form of science that supports many Evolutinonary "theories" as "facts"-be considered "anti-God" then?

[sgtmac_46]

But aren't there also dangers in trying to replace religion with a secular equivalent? There is always danger in dogmatic belief. That's why i'm agnostic.

[sgtmac_46]

Question to all:

What if the existence of God was proven-through the use of scientific evidence? Evidences that overwhelmingly prove that God does exist?

Would science-the same form of science that supports many Evolutinonary "theories" as "facts"-be considered "anti-God" then? Perhaps, though it is my belief that the existence or non-existence of God cannot be empirically proven. That is the nature of the problem. So, since we cannot directly measure whether the is a God, we end up with the 'Invisible Gardner' debate.

[biggles53]

Apparently you are having trouble with the basic concept that it impossible to get life from the lifeless. That is my push, and has been from the beginning. Jumble the words and definitions to your heart’s content, it only shows a lack of understanding of what drives your own beliefs.

If you want to debate the evidence for abiogenesis...fine. Let's have at it. But YOU were arguing about EVOLUTION! There was no "jumble" on my part. EVOLUTION says NOTHING about how life arose! It's like blaming the theory of Gravitational Attraction for not addressing how bacteria live!




Very foolish of you to assume such a thing, but you are consistent, assuming much about “nuttin”.

My assumption was a pretty safe one. The canards you parrot here about evolution being unable to explain the origins of life are almost word-for-word the same charges that are made on many dishonest creationist websites.....

[Mobulis]

Question to all:

What if the existence of God was proven-through the use of scientific evidence? Evidences that overwhelmingly prove that God does exist?

Would science-the same form of science that supports many Evolutinonary "theories" as "facts"-be considered "anti-God" then?

Nope god is the "who" evolution is the "how".

[badkarma]

You mean there's no evidence to "prove" the existence of a God or an intelligent designer. You can't prove a negative.
Which was my point. The existence of God can not be disproven, so we have to admit to the possibility that such an entity exists regardless of how outlandish we find such a concept.

To further explain, and to head of the inevitable "than you are not an atheist" argument that always arises here, neither you (generic you not specific) nor I believe in Santa, but if provided with incontrovertible evidence of his existence we would then have to change such beliefs. That does not mean that we do not know if Santa is real or not or that we have some agnostic Santa beliefs, it just means that we are willing to entertain other possibilities concerning Santa if presented with the proper evidence.

[Greyclouds]

Question to all:

What if the existence of God was proven-through the use of scientific evidence? Evidences that overwhelmingly prove that God does exist?

Would science-the same form of science that supports many Evolutinonary "theories" as "facts"-be considered "anti-God" then?

If physical data supported the existence of God, and defined his powers, then the influenced Scientific Theories would be either rejected or modified to take his presence into account.

Keep in mind, though, that Science can only demonstrate a PHYSICAL God (basically, a conscious being with more power than a normal human being).

I get the feeling that SOME might consider Science to be anti-God, even in that case; simply because the concept of "God" might be contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs. For instance, the Mormon concept of Elohim as a physical being is an anathema to some other Christian denominations.

Imagine if Science proved that God is simply an ugly alien, with vastly improved technology, that has created us to proliferate on this planet to eventually harvest us as parts of its body! I believe that religious beliefs would surmount such a revelation, and people would still believe in an "alternative" monotheistic, spiritual God.

[sgtmac_46]

Nope god is the "who" evolution is the "how".

A good point.....more to the point god is the 'why'.....a question science is not geared to answer. Science can only answer the question of 'how'.......'why' is a question for philosophers and theologians.

[Greyclouds]

A good point.....more to the point god is the 'why'.....a question science is not geared to answer. Science can only answer the question of 'how'.......'why' is a question for philosophers and theologians.

Bingo :clap:

[Arya]

Nope god is the "who" evolution is the "how".

That actually is along the lines of what I was asking...Evolution (science) is explaining the "how". But the real question was what if "science" inadvertently "proves" God's existence?

If science has been successful in providing evidence of the "how", it may not be a far reach-given time and greater understanding of our universe and/or technological advancements-that science will provide evidence of a "who".

[Arya]

If physical data supported the existence of God, and defined his powers, then the influenced Scientific Theories would be either rejected or modified to take his presence into account.

Keep in mind, though, that Science can only demonstrate a PHYSICAL God (basically, a conscious being with more power than a normal human being).

I get the feeling that SOME might consider Science to be anti-God, even in that case; simply because the concept of "God" might be contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs. For instance, the Mormon concept of Elohim as a physical being is an anathema to some other Christian denominations.

Imagine if Science proved that God is simply an ugly alien, with vastly improved technology, that has created us to proliferate on this planet to eventually harvest us as parts of its body! I believe that religious beliefs would surmount such a revelation, and people would still believe in an "alternative" monotheistic, spiritual God.

I agree with your scenarios of what may occur if "God" was found to be other than a highly powerful being, that does not contain a body. People would most likely believe in an "alternative" monotheistic, spiritual being.

I was also thinking along the lines of scientific studies uncovering evidences of detecting, or otherwise being able to prove the existance of a non-physical God (a truly spiritual being). How much would that actually change how we percieve science and spirituality?

[Marleysdaddy]

I was also thinking along the lines of scientific studies uncovering evidences of detecting, or otherwise being able to prove the existance [sic] of a non-physical God (a truly spiritual being). How much would that actually change how we percieve [sic] science and spirituality?

What non-physical substance would be detected? And wouldn't the detecting equipment also have to be non-physical? If so, how would we operate it? :D