Tuesday Open Thread: Darwin Edition
by PubliusToday, in 1859, Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species” was published.
Yes, it is an important anniversary in the Western canon.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
99 Comments
Personally I did not evolve from primordial slime, not matter what Darwin's THEORY says.
But I've have a few bosses or aquaintences whom I suspect might have…
Improvement and adaptation of species (beaks better suited to food sources, etc), clearly proven. But I've yet to see a rat evolve into a cat
Someone overreached in their extrapolation just a wee bit…. All in an effort to disprove God's existence and salve their personal heartache.
A fool says in his heart there is no God. Nuff said…
A fool is somebody who thinks he know everything.
That danged-ol' danged-ol' Darwin. If I had that rascal here today, I'd slap him around severely.
For the record, Jesus made me and my family in his image. (ThankyouJesus)
Wait a minute. That doesn't sound right, either, considering one of my sisters is a stupid bee-otch and one of my uncles was no better than he should've been.
Now, I'm all confused.
Just curious. Where does one think ObamaSlime and his cohorts evolved from ? I suggest there is a giant rock somewhere on the planet these vermin crawled out from under. We need to FIND THAT ROCK !
There is a wonderful movie that has just come out called "The Mysterious Island".
http://www.themysteriousislands.com/
As the world celebrates 150 years since Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species," take a surprising journey back to Darwin's Eden — the mysterious Galapagos Islands — and uncover its true secrets.
"The question is, is the Galapagos Islands a laboratory of evolution or a testimony of God's creation." – Doug Phillips, one of the producer's of this exciting new movie.
I have only seen trailers for this new movie, but we have it ordered and am very excited to see it in full.
Just as a side note, they were recently refused a showing at the US Space and Rocket Center in Alabama because of the controversial nature of the film. However, upon receiving a letter from the ADF explaining their constitutional right for a showing they have been allowed to proceed with the showing on Nov.25.
You can read more on the film's facebook page. http://www.facebook.com/themysteriousislands
I was taught Darwin's dangerous belief's in evolution as a child in government schools. Could it be the beliefs of evolution that has caused so many people to not have hope or morals?
There is nothing more satisfying knowing that, eventually, we'll be watching our friends, neighbors and (former) loved ones being pitched head-first into the lake of fire, the LAKE OF FIRE, I tell you!
I hope the Good Lord provides popcorn on that blessed day, when those who boast the most are made to roast and toast by the Heavenly Host. (ThankyouJesus)
"Improvement and adaptation of species (beaks better suited to food sources, etc), clearly proven. But I've yet to see a rat evolve into a cat ".
Rats evolve into politicians.
Darwin withheld his conclusions for 20 years, because of his knowledge that his work would damage Christianity's precepts.
Oh this thread will be a long one!
IMO, Stephen Meyer's new book Signature in the Cell may have a similar impact as Darwin's book.
HP Jr…
Jesus loves you regardless of your lack of faith in him…
There will be no celebration when some are cast into the fire.
Respectfully to you sir, I meant let the FLAMES upon me for my Offensive Posting against Darwin begin. I did not mean to offend you with my proselytizing.
The difference between us is I can respect and allow you to believe whatever you wish, I can pray it would be otherwise…
Nonetheless, he published it out of anger over the death of his daughter, and he allowed people to twist it into what it is today.
SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE of ANYTHING evolving from ONE THING like a cat into a different thing Like a DOG.
Sorry, this THEORY has holes in it.
OUCH! You may have me there… Where/what are the intermediate stages
THANK YOU! I am looking into this now!
I totally misinterpreted what you said about Flames.
Now that I know what you meant, it's obvious that I just took it wrong.
I do apologize. I promise you that I didn't intentionally misunderstand your point.
HP Jr.
Bygones I respect your thoughts and opinions.
I would NEVER celebrate anyones damnation…
But I expect to fry on this thread because "the flamers" will be voracious… My puny rep score will be toast I'm sure
You and me, we're fine in my book.
I will try to be more clear as well.
Interesting opinions. I 've heard it said we came from slime, from under a rock and other various places. I would be curious to see the Obama Family Tree………….
You are, as always, totally gracious, even when you could totally blast the other party, and still be well within your moral rights.
Thank you.
Darwin and the Scope's Trial worked to undermine The Book of Genesis. Which results in the situation whereby if we don't believe the beginning(s), why should we believe the endings. Life has many choices and Eternity has only 2 choices.
Darwin admitted himself IN THIS DOCUMENT that there was not enough evidence to prove his hypothesis… boooo
HP Jr.
STOP… I'm blushing…
I will never get any work done at this rate.
Sir, I MUST be true to my values if only to prove to myself daily that I am a powerfully and masterfully created being, with a purpose greater than myself.
To do so otherwise might mean I was evolved from primordial slime…
Have a blessed day, and a blessed Thanksgiving Holiday.
Thank you deeply for your kind words.
But I'm going to try to stay away for a bit…
I'm all confused on the whole "slime" thing… I read somewhere that there was a "forming" going on during creation. That man was formed out of the dust of the ground and that God breathed life into him…doesn't sound too much like an evolution to me. I also read God "planted" a garden… The beasts of the field and birds of the air were formed out of the ground… Having a tough time w/ this primordial slime stuff.
Is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution the next bit of junk science to be debunked? Over a hundred years of searching and still no proof — nothing in the fossil record supports it!
And yet the empirical evidence OVERWHELMINGLY supports the theory of evolution. Our brain structure includes the structures found in more primitive species (reptiles). Their brains include (as do ours) the structure of more primitive species (think fish). And so on. Furthermore what is a whale doing with the same five fingered bone structure in its flippers as us mammals have? There is in fact a lot of evidence that the various species did evolve and change over time. Besides, the alternative which would be miraculous creation? Seems laughable considering no miracles manifest themselves these days. No one is healing the sick and no new specials are being willed into existence.. nor would that be plausible. Surely if you can accept that evolution of some kind exists, that evolution fundamental enough to change an eohippus into a horse is, over time, possible.
Just consider the scales of time which are completely beyond imagination. Can you really fathom what could transpire over a million years? Just one million? What species could survive without slightly evolving? Now double that — two million years. Time to evolve, to change. Imagine 10 million years — relatively a huge time period, dwarfing the time that humans have existed. Imagine 100 million years — dwarfing the time that primates have existed. Imagine 5 bilion years. You can't. Anything could happen in 5 billion years.
Darwin's Evolution is like Man-made Global Warming.
While sure, it's possible that it somewhat does exist (like we have "evolved" over the centuries at least mentally, and it is possible that the planet warms itself), people blew it out of proportion (there's no way we evolved from slime/apes/whatever over millions of years (in my opinion the Earth has only been around for some thousands of years), and I highly doubt that we're able to magically control the climate to where we could flood the planet or something in 50+ years) .
Also a % of people seem to claim these things as fact, despite them both still being merely theories that have quite a bit of holes in them, and so far they haven't been proven true… they're just ideas that have been agreed upon by the majority of scientists (because consensuses are always right!).
Even though we disagree on evolution, your honest convictions warrant no thumbs down, the thought never crossed my mind.
I respect people that believe that we answer a higher calling and people that look to a natural framework of laws originating in Judeo-Christian beliefs. The empirical evidence shows that they know how to create a lasting civilization of free and happy people. Our society would fall apart without you guys.
However if it were not for the precarious situation conservative ideas are in, I would rail against the notion that evolution did not take place essentially as we are describing. and anyone who would oppose that point of view. Science is the answer, predetermined conclusions about ghosts and spirits that protestances in america seem to be going for.
The problem with darwin is the popular narrative is so distorted from historic fact. See here, for instance.
I believe I came from the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (Hardcover)
The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
Darwin wrote about racism and fostered it
Mein Kampf was about Class/race struggles
Darwin was a set back for this planet.
I think the confusion stems from a misunderstanding caused by literal interpretations of the Genesis creation myth.
(Don't be offended, brothers and sisters, Tolkien referred to it properly as 'myth':
)
I call it the error of the Scribes & Pharisees, who were tasked with interpreting the prophetic Messiah. They could not see past their status as a subject of Rome – they were looking for a literal & temporal king, not an eternal sacrificial lamb.
Any temporal vision (that is, looking forward or backward in time) is going to be full of symbols and distorted by the divide between the eternal point of view and our time bound view.
So the earth could be many millions of years old and the Genesis myth still be true. The creation could have taken millions of years to unfold, but 6 days to show Moses in accelerated form.
Conversely, the earth and universe could also be much younger than we think because we have no frame of reference on a scale as vast as the universe. At current rates of expansion, it does appear the universe is many billions of years old. But what if those rates have been gradually increasing or decreasing? How would we know, given the vast space and (apparent) time?
As for the question of Darwin's common descent, perhaps it is true – it still doesn't explain the information in all life (DNA) and therefore doesn't disprove God – indeed, it glorifies God as a sophisticated foresighted engineer! Suppose God had us (maybe others?) in mind when the universe was formed and seeded Earth with a few cells containing all the genetic instruction required to eventually produce his image.
Then again, maybe its all bunk and we are a product of blind fate. Either way it is a matter of faith.
Chas Darwin had a belly button. Adam & Eve did not have a belly button.
david,your picture,does that represent you and how you are or is it just a ha ha thing?
Thanks CorporalO.
I agree on the Conservative issue. We need to not fight each other, but unite againt the socialist (and worse) attacks on America.
In the end, we are more alike than different.
rikr,
It is me. I was at a Urban Assault Traing MOUT facility last March. It was almost like being in uniform again. It was a great day.
Yes, simunition hurts, but not as bad as real bullets (Thank God).
Otherwise I'm not sure what you mean about a ha ha thing.
All my comments tend to be pretty consistent and reflect who I really am.
Might be stoopid of me, but oh well…
Cool?
I'll state for the record that none of the major religions object to evolutionary theory. When considering a scientific theory remember that it is concerned with how something happens, not why. Linguistics was subject to similar attacks because it stated that languages changed and developed over time.
The simple fact that we are capable of pondering our own existance is proof enough for the existance of God.
"Seems laughable considering no miracles manifest themselves these days."
Perhaps you need to consider the purposes of miracles. Look at Acts 14:3 or 2 Corinthians 12:12.
"Anything could happen in 5 billion years. "
Absolutely. In that time fairies, gnomes and elves could have come and gone. Innumerable unicorns and flying pink elephants could have come into existence only to die out following climate changes. Evolution is dependent upon the invocation of unknown processes and billions of years. To do so is considered part and parcel with evolutionary thought. Whereas a religionist invoking an infinite God working in mysterious ways is considered laughable and dim-witted.
All physical evidence is consistent with evolution. Every protein, gene and organism on earth is consistent with evolution. Even the geology of the earth and solar system are consistent with evolution. Life began on earth as soon as the oceans formed and then evolution began. Evolution explains the variety of life on earth not the creation of life. The leap from geology to biology is a chemistry question. How life started in our early oceans is a chemistry question outside of the theory of evolution.
Darwin's insight was a fantastic achievement of science and logic. Life consists of sets.
Humans are vertebrates. Humans are also placental-mammals. All placental-mammals are vertebrates, but not all vertebrates are placental-mammals. Humans are also primates. All primates are placental-mammals but again not all placental-mammals are primates.
Evolution is a powerful and consistent theory.
You're right, of course. All evidence does suggest that you are still primordial slime.
All physical evidence is consistent with a 4.5billion year old earth.
Charles Darwin was a biologist not a paleontologist. He did not need the fossil record. Darwin's evidence is the variety of life that exists on earth today.
The fossil record is very consistent with evolution.
single cell life formed soon after the oceans formed 4.4 billion years ago.
Wow… To some of Y'all, crack open a science book or a science journal. There is much more to the world than what you learn in church or internet echo chambers.
I wish I could remember the name of the clergyman who said "The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go". We have a wonderful puzzle called life in front of us and the physical world is a wonder to be explored. Explore that which God has created for you. That which He doesn't want you to know will remain obscured.
As long as we're playing guilt-by-association, Osama Bin Laden is a young-Earth creationist.
I (a Protestant PhD physicist) and my wife (a Catholic PhD microbiologist) find nothing in Darwin's EotS that threatens our faith in the Almighty. Faith and Science answer different questions…
If EotS threatens your faith, then you have to ask if your faith was really that strong to begin with…
Darwin married his first cousin. Darwin believed that inbreeding was key to producing superior children. Just like his evolution theory, he was wrong about that too. Several of his children died young and none were healthy.
Thus, Charles and Emma were first cousins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin-Wedgwood_fami...
Darwin was also a racist, no one ever seems to mention the full title of the Origins book.
It was: Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life
Nor was Darwin trained as a scientist, his degree was in theology. Isn't it strange that the man admired as a great thinker by atheist was actually trained as a preacher?
I won't flame you. But I will point out that evolution and Christianity, even creation, can live together. To deny scientific evidence, though, is to deny God's work. If it's all His hand, then He did this, too. Not to cruelly test us, but to help us keep faith in Him.
Why does His work have to fit the parameters we believed previously? If they did, God's existence would be provable. And that would eliminate the need for faith. Faith is everything.
So, nobody has to show me a pre-dog, although there probably is a fossil like that out there. But I won't deny actual scientific data and demand the world be far younger than it provably is because "God says so." That's humans talking. If God wants the world to be a jillian years old, then … it is. Regardless of what even the bible seems or seemed to say.
I have no time for those who think science disproves God. They're skewing their results and understanding to shore up their own disbelief. But God doesn't fit Himself to human or scientific parameters to suit the faithful's natural desire to have proof, either.
But that's just my opinion on the matter. I'm very concerned by what some (not pointing the finger at you, of course) are doing and demanding in the "name of God".
Right, and those cells require what level of coding to exist and replicate?
The devil is in the details.
Darwin's theory says through evolution we get new species. There is no proof of this. Existing animals, through evolution, may achieve slight improvements, but there is no record/proof of an entirely new species be created.
Science in the mid-19th century was still a branch of philosophy, on an equal footing with theology.
A fool says in his heart "I have no evidence, but I'll act like I do anyway".
Hey everyone! PSSST! Let's confirm the left-wing slander that right-wingers are a bunch of religious zealots who are against science!
That made me feel incredibly happy inside. I know so many people, the worst sinners you can imagine, and when the day comes that they burn for eternity, I truly hope I can watch their pain, hear their screams of agony. Especially those filthy Buddhist Monks! Those guys give me the chills. They will burn extra crispy.
You're a primate. Adjust to it. Doesn't mean you aren't special, and it doesn't mean there is no God. Just means the earth is not flat anymore.
I agree. Things like evolution are not as important as the the country itself.
"I'll state for the record that none of the major religions object to evolutionary theory."………chelydra
That is ABSOLUTELY incorrect. Gen. 1:1-"In the beginning, God created the heavans and the earth." Notice it doesn't say, "Over billions and billions of years, the first cell (where did it come from?) mutated billions of times and became a rock, which became a fish, which became an ape, which became a man"……or some such nonsense.
Gen. 1:12-"And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to it's kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to it's kind."
Gen 1: 24-"Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to it's kind."
And guess what, SCIENTIFICALLY that's exactly what we see happening today, humans have human infants, cows have calves, dogs have puppies, cats have kittens, apple trees produce apples, etc.
Matthew 19:3-4:-"The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason? And He answered and said, " Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ' made them male and female…." You'll notice no reference to evolution there, rather that He (Creator of the Universe) made them adult and mature.
Darwin in "Origin of Species": "To suppose that the eye formed by natural selection is, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." The greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind, even outdoing "global warming" or "climate change," hard as that is to believe.
"Chas Darwin had a belly button. Adam & Eve did not have a belly button. "………..Gregory
Good point……….and funny too!
No wonder they want to return us peons to the Stone Ages. (I know, I know, you're groaning at the bad pun, but I couldn't resist.)
YAY for the increasing exposure of the climate-change hoax!
Borat Obozo- the " MISSING LINK "
THIS! What Chelydra said!
The bible said that God created everything in 7 days. Ever think those were God days? One of those days could be 500 million of our days. I mean, let's be honest… this is God. And since the bible teaches you to make the right choices… doesn't that coincide with evolution?
There is NOTHING stopping anyone from believing in evolution and being a good Christian. It's not a zero sum game.
If climate change if shown to be complete b.s., it doesn't mean we stop trying to minimize pollution. That's just common sense. I worry less about about greenhouse gases than the actual particulate crap coming out of coal plants.
How come there is no mention of dinosaurs in the bible?
Obama proves natural selection is as true as global warming
I agree….It is with great arrogance that we assume to grasp the vastness of God's Universe.I believe that we will never truly know from which we came…but our future generations will….they would have evolved enough to realize that in order to See the Face of God you need to be worthy of His scrutiny….as a Society of Human Beings…Only by following his Universal Laws…Known and as yet undiscovered by science and philosophy…We are still children …for now..
And the snakes became lawyers….Sharks became the media…I see your logic…
I agree…It's what we are expected to become that will reward that faith…Never stop evolving into something better.
You are …of course…Achieving your desired results then…Do we get breadsticks with that?
"Why aren't dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible?"……..AmericanJohn
Guess what? They are:
Job 40:15–24 (NKJV)
15 “Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you;
He eats grass like an ox.
16 See now, his strength is in his hips,
And his power is in his stomach muscles.
17 He moves his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
"A tail like a cedar" would be an apt description of what we commonly refer to today as a sauropod dinosaur, or as it was know beford Sir Richard Owen coined the term in 1841, a "dragon."
It's important to note that Darwin didn't write the last word on evolution (nor the first).
The theory of evolution explains why we see extinct creatures in older layers of rock, while more recent fossils bear more similarities to living organisms. There are no legitimate examples to the contrary. Indeed, if someone found a rabbit fossil from the Cambrian period, (500 million years ago), the whole theory would be threatened. No one has found rabbits in the Cambrian, or humans in the Jurassic. Similarly, no one has found dinosaurs in the Devonian, because dinosaurs had not evolved yet.
Your opinion that the earth is a few thousand years is very likely wrong. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
Many organisms such as plants or types of wasps routinely inbreed, with little or no fitness costs. In fact, modern evolutionary theory (which incorporates genetics) predicts that fitness can be increased by inbreeding, since optimal genes shared by both parents are passed on.
The full title of the first edition of Darwin's book is well known among biologists. "Favoured Races" means lineages that are better adapted. Natural Selection favors them. There is no moral judgment.
In the Voyage of the Beagle, Darwin decried the brutalities of slavery he encountered in South America.
But even if Darwin was a racist, or trained as a preacher, or , lets pretend a schizophrenic drug-addicted murderer, it doesn't change the fact that not a shred of reputable evidence in the last 150 years has disproved the idea that all life on earth is related through common ancestry, that the earth is extremely old, that the fossil record shows the appearance of new species which didn't exist before, and that natural selection and genetic variation is the only process so far proposed that can conceivably explain the patterns in nature, unless you believe magic did it.
It's important to remember that Darwin did not write the last word on evolution, nor the first. The idea that organisms changed over time had existed earlier, but a mechanism that could cause such change was not agreed on. Some scholars thought a Creator changed species. Some thought that the action of individuals changed their offspring (i.e. a giraffe stretching it's neck to reach higher leaves would have a baby with a slightly longer neck). Darwin had no knowledge of genetics, and thus it wasn't until the next century that the Modern Synthesis occurred, shaping the current theory of evolution by natural selection.
Darwin wasn't even alone in hypothesizing natural selection (nonrandom survival of offspring due to inheritance). Alfred Russel Wallace, a contemporary naturalist, came to the same conclusion while studying on the other side of the world. Thus, even if Darwin was totally wrong, and made up every word of his book, natural selection still would make sense, and still is the most rational, simplest, explanatory mechanism that explains the patterns in the fossil record, and the diversity of life on earth.
Any modern textbook on evolution will give a thorough description of the molecular (genetic) basis of evolution, as well as a summary of the evidence for evolution.
Fact: The world is billions of years old.
Fact: The fossil record shows new organisms appearing over time.
Fact: Some fossil species go extinct (are never seen in the record again), while others persist or are replaced by changed forms.
Fact: Evolution happens.
Natural Selection is a widely encompassing theory that explains all of these facts, and millions more.
Darwin laid the wood, Hitler lit the match.
origin of the feces
Now THAT, was funny!
Me 'n' Jesus don't like none a that there evolution talk.
rjcylon, you are bad, bad, bad.
So bad.
But you're forgiven, LOL.
david, you say thank god..which one…I hear tell there is a bunch…. Darwinism like the bible, both got a bunch of holes in them, just like a lot of my friends. Its just one big circle of live and die.
There was evil in the world long before Darwin
I wonder if you could point me to evidence for fact number 2. If it is so definitive then why are scientists still DESPERATE to find missing links?
The Silver Bullet of Truth! M. Btok 1
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
November 29, 2009
Lord Monckton, who challenged Al Gore on man-made climate change and was rebuffed by a gaggle of peevish Democrats, wants the climate “scientists” caught red-handed fiddling with climate stats prosecuted.
“They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers,” writes Monckton. “With Professor Fred Singer, who founded the U.S. Satellite Weather Service, I have reported them to the UK’s Information Commissioner, with a request that he investigate their offenses and, if thought fit, prosecute.” http://www.infowars.com/lord-monckton-prosecute-t...
climate-change-criminals/ Part 2.
November 23, 2009
Retired climatologist Dr. Tim Ball joins us to discuss the significance of the recently leaked emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University which expose deceit, duplicity and collusion between climate researchers to maintain the fraud of the manmade global warming theory. These emails reveal stunning behind-the-scenes details about how this fraud has been developed and perpetuated, and Dr. Ball shares his insights on what they show.
http://www.infowars.com/dr-tim-ball-on-the-signif...
Whatever, is happening to my family's and my lifestyle without us having our say? Find out go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
He then went on for a couple of pages explaining exactly how a complex eye could have evolved by small beneficial steps. That's a great job though of quoting out of context and leaving people to believe exactly the opposite of what was actually written on your part though. I must conclude that you are purposefully deceitful or haven't actually read The Origin of Species yourself.
Because "missing links" make great press. If you want evidence, pick up a paeleontology book, don't ask rhetorical questions of random people on the internet!!! You don't need to look at the fossil record to see new species evolving. For example the Culex pipiens molestus mosquito.
are you friggin KIDDING me? Clearly God went out of his way NOT to say dinosaur, so much that he tried to be as cryptic as possible. Yeah, perhaps you can also interpret "strength in his hips" as a dinosaur that can salsa. jaysus.
and God knew hitler before he made him. Yawn. Anything else from the fallacy, liberal interpretation, or misinformation aisle?
And yet, you are dead wrong. Stop trying to obfiscate the facts with your little smoke screens. People tend to latch onto any little thing that supports what they already think they know rather than look at the overall picture given by reliable evidence. That certainly helps the fringe crackpots. It's fascinating how climatologists were warning about global warming while certain political factions denied the possibility. Then came the evidence of global warming actually occuring. Still they denied it. Then the evidence became so strong and global warming began to be obvious enough that the political deniers had to admit that, yes, indeed, it was occuring. So then they shifted to denying it was anthropogenic. They will keep backing up, salvaging what they can for their own selfish purposes. Scientists are not a secret society. They're not out to scam the entire world. Science is self-correcting, self-questioning, and, oddly enough, it works! Just call your neighbor who just survived a quintuple bypass on your cell phone and ask…
You make this comment even though temperatures have been declining in the past decade? So much so that some activists treating lab coat like vestments have to hide it to protect their hypothesis.
You are correct in stating that science is self correcting. With the release of those e-mails a major correction is on the way, with global warming being cast into the dust heap with eugenics. Purging out those who are driven by anything exept a desire to discover the truth will only be a boon to science.
"The fossil record is very consistent with evolution. "
Really? Why is there a void of millions of fossilized transitional species to support the evolution of a single species to the diverse species that are now and have in the past inhabited the planet? Where? Did the dog happen immediately as an accident of birth from a cow? The foolishness of your statement shows either wanton disregard for facts, or public sector educational indoctrination. Or both.
Can you provide proof? Not just a single, or even a dozen. There has to be millions else the fossil record clearly proves evolution is a falsehood. You can't because it doesn't exist.
Ruebacca,
So when the dogma (yes evolution is a religion) is attacked, it is always the same talking points. The 'physical evidence' is Earth. But it is not evidence of your religion, it is evidence of a creation that is far more complex than accidental mutation can even come remotely close to accounting for. The mathematical impossibility of life to simply occur is well documented. The irreducible dependencies are irrefutable. And like the AGW hoax, any dissention is treated as heresy. Heretical findings don't get "peer-reviewed and published" for the reason of heresy.
Open your eyes. Look at the world without your evo-glasses on. The missing information that is so desperately sought after does not exist. The ever present answer to the faith is if it is proven wrong, and no proof exists to prove an alternative it's only "because we haven't found it yet – but it's true because we believe it and we are scientists and evolution is a fact". It's a lie. And you are spewing the same humanist religious tenets of those that have come before you.
Evolution is not just the religion of life. It is also the religion of the origin of life. It fails on the origin of life as it fails to explain how, contrary to natural selection, many species exist or did exist that do not conform to the theory.
Evolution is only powerful and consistent to those the humanists that practice the religious tenets and maintain the faith.
With such a powerful theory, with the number of mutations that would occur over time, the number of species would increase, over time. And the preCambrian fossil record shows such a small number of complex species, then the Cambrian explosion. The recent fossils should show millions of mutated species after the Cambrian exlplosion, right? Oops, can't prove that so – let's just say they all died off. Only a few species have survived in the last 6000 years.
You put it out there, and I'll shoot holes large enough to drive a truck through it.
The echo chambers. You mean the ones where all of the like minded scientist-intellectual elites meet and will not hear of a dissenting opinion? You mean those? The ones that will berate dissension as amateur, unpublished, etc? The ones that will not peer review dissension? Thus can't be published? Grant money can't be had if you don't agree? Those echo chambers?
God CREATED all of the beasts and the animals and the fishes. You seem to want to put His ability into a box that fits your religion. Our world as we see it can all be explained easily through the Bible. It cannot be explained through Darwin. As was said by an English biologist "there is far more evidence against evolution than for it, but to believe in the former would require me to believe there is a God, and I can't do that". That is the zero sum game my friend.
I beg to differ. The transitional fossil record is sorely lacking, to the point of near-non-existence. Claiming that it is caused by accelerated mutation is a weak attempt to explain what cannot be explained in the evolutionary fable. The age old scientific method. If it is disproved, it's still true, it just happened some other way that we haven't discovered yet.
Forget missing links, let's examine the vast number of transitional species identified in the fossil record to provide a roadmap of how each of the millions of species and sub-species arrived. I'll be waiting.
And I'm sure Culex pipiens molestus mosquito will evolve into a much more complex creature. Your micro evolution does not provide the support for the macro evolution required of the theory.
Either you trust the scientific method or you don't. I prefer to go with that which produces tangible results. As with all things, science is fallible as humans are fallible.
It may take years, decades, or even centuries to get it right, but so long as we maintain our curiosity, the truth, pursued through the impassioned eye of the scientific method, wins out over politics and religious dogma.
Did you know that it was a priest who played a pivotal role in the big bang theory? Over the atheist who proposed the steady state theory?
Just as there is no proof of God!!!!
Visitor recommendations…
[...]one of our visitors recently recommended the following website[...]……
You must be logged in to post a comment.