Posted on 12/03/2018 8:36:54 AM PST by C19fan
Mocking Darwin because his work might have been flawed is like mocking Newton because he made errors that fell to Einstein to correct. Or diminishing the role of Dr. Christiaan Barnard to the history of medicine for performing an experimental heart transplant because the patient only survived for 18 days.
Because science is a cumulative process. It never would have got anywhere if no scientist ever could put forward a theory unless and until it was perfect and without flaw. Einstein himself never would have reached so high except he was standing on the shoulders of the giants of science who came before him, most notably James Clerk Maxwell. Science only occasionally has any need to be perfect. Close is usually good enough, at least until the science or the technology improves. Consider that Pi has been calculated to a trillion digits (and still was repeating) but NASA successfully put men on the moon only using the first three of them (3.14).
Still, some of Darwin's insights were utterly remarkable because at the time he undertook the voyage of The Beagle, no hominid fossils had yet been found. Absolutely no evidence for the existence of a human ancestor. The first was found only the year previous to the first publication of On the Origin. Very Einstein-like, he had predicted the existence of something that there as yet was absolutely no physical evidence of but later was proved to exist.
Darwin was in fact forced to publish prematurely (which undoubtedly affected the book's thoroughness) because he was about to have his thunder stolen by one Alfred Russel Wallace. Wallace, working in completely different regions of the world and studying completely different forms of life, arrived at the same conclusions (in big pieces) as Darwin had. But Wallace did not suffer from Darwin's many nervous afflictions so even though he had begun his work 17 years later than Darwin, he was prepared to go to press quicker, which forced Darwin's hand.
Repeatability is the hallmark of "good" science and Wallace represents nothing if not repeatability. But the irony is that if Wallace had got to press the sooner of the two, this thread would be arguing Wallace's theory and Darwin would be the forgotten man.
The chief reason that science can't compete against religion is that religion is a matter of faith. Facts are immaterial.
The chief reason that religion can't compete against science is that religion will never admit its mistakes. I has no need to because, by definition, faith has no need of facts. And for this, science mocks it.
But science is constantly re-evaluating itself and changing course whenever it finds it is diverging from the facts. And for this, religion mocks it.
"Darwin himself admitted before he died that his theory was wrong...."
The error that Darwin admitted to was his inclusion of references to "the Creator" in On the Origin.
No, it isn't "made up," it is deductive reasoning based on a number of established factors.
First, woman is unique among mammals in that she is the only female who has permanently distended breasts and experiences "concealed ovulation" (no visual signs of being in estrus).
Second, man has the longest childhood of any animal (followed, in order, by elephants and orangutans). Which is significant because this allows for the human infant to be born in an extremely immature state (which goes to less trauma to the mother's birth canal) yet still grow a very large and well-developed brain.
Third, there is no natural tendency to monogamy among mammals that show sexual dimorphism of size if the male is the larger of the two sexes.
So the woman's dilemma is that if she is to have grandchildren, she needs a co-parent and helpmate who will stick around until her offspring are self-sufficient. But men are not inclined to monogamy, so they somehow have to be enticed into staying.
What woman has working to her advantage is that her man can't easily tell whether she is ovulating. For a male mammal, knowing when any particular female is in estrus is important because that time represents both its best opportunity to breed with result and the time when it is most important that the particular female be guarded against breeding attempts from other males.
And in many mammals, distention of the breasts is a visual cue that estrus is either near or in progress.
Taken together, that means it's difficult at best for a man to know when it's safe to leave his woman alone and not risk her next child being some else's. And the distended breasts can be instinctually perceived as a display of always being receptive to breeding.
Under these circumstances, evolution obviously should favor men who instinctually associate distended breasts with readiness to breed because they also are instinctually inclined to stay around, in the process inadvertently becoming a co-parent.
In other words, it is logical that evolution would favor the genes of those who are "boob men."
So, ladies, the next time you catch a man ogling your chest, don't blame him, it's just the Darwin in him talking.
Science is rooted in Christianity. Sir Issac Newton would attest to that as well. DNA proves we all came from a similar source? I don’t know what you’re reading or who you’re listening to, but it proves the contrary. It also breaks down much further than just DNA, what makes up DNA etc.
It does say in the new testament that people will become vain in their beliefs and refuse to believe the truth. It’s a sign things are drawing to a close.
Like I said, totally made up. The conclusion does not in any way logically follow the premises. Evolution does not make one believe a skin tone breast is a red ass.
Perhaps, but many women are small breasted, and I mean SMALL.
That is one thing you cannot accuse me of.
0500 every day, walton and johnson at 0530, with my coffee, granola bars and 13 bottles of prescription drugs!
That’s the problem with evolutionists. You take everything you can’t really explain as a given. DNA?
What is the rival conjecture for that proof, and how was it disproven?
Make no mistake, your confidence is a religious faith, albeit a complex one. It is no more subject to falsifiability than is Noah’s Ark.
Furthermore, it’s pretty evident the whole “global warming” swindle is using evolution as its epistemological blueprint.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.