Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Textbooks at center of evolution debate
Associated Press ^ | 10/31/03

Posted on 11/01/2003 4:14:09 AM PST by I Am Not A Mod

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-250 next last
To: DannyTN
Evolutionists just take it on "faith" that an answer to the complexity problem will be found.

Granting your less-than-universally-supported contention that there is a complexity problem...

Just as physicists and astronomers take it on faith that an answer to the dark matter conundrum will be found--or not... and go right on doing astronomy and physics, regardless.


101 posted on 11/01/2003 11:54:39 PM PST by donh (1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Held_to_Ransom
The particular Marxist story of Darwin's denial of Christianity comes from a Marxist

What in the world are you on about? Darwin's denial of Christianity is in his autobiography, in his own hand.

102 posted on 11/02/2003 12:13:36 AM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: donh
Someone who is, at best, tepid as to whether it's a good idea for God to exist is also generally counted as an agnostic.

That's an unusual definition. I can't even answer if it applies to me because you've not clearly defined "God" with respect to the definition.
103 posted on 11/02/2003 12:48:18 AM PST by Dimensio (The only thing you feel when you take a human life is recoil. -- Frank "Earl" Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: BiffWondercat
Some state that "99% of mutations are harmful"
Y'all are much more up to speed on this point.
Actually most mutations are neutral. Of the mutations that have some kind of effect, most are indeed harmful. But not all of them. There's a list of several examples of beneficial mutations here.
104 posted on 11/02/2003 1:34:10 AM PST by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Comment #105 Removed by Moderator

To: Dimensio
Evidence?

Okay, I will play your game and then watch you explain it away. Mathematics. Heard of it? Calculate the probability of mutations happening in this many species in a positive manner to yield "improved" results. Math, you have heard of it, all sciences use it? All evolutionists dodge this fact. You have a better chance of having a purple dragon flying out of your butt than of positive mutations happening over billions of years to create the mass number of species we have alive today.

Are you referring to any generic god, or a specific God in particular?

Take your pick...here, I will add some to the fray. It takes less faith to believe in Bigfoot (not the truck), those purple dragons, and lochness monster, and the gremlins that cause my computer to crash. Generic or specific God...you choose.

Here is your strawman: explain to me how every species on this planet could have divided into two genders (please don't point to the few examples of asexual creatures). How is it that 99.99999% of all species have a male and female? How could that have "evolved" by cance mutations in separate species?

106 posted on 11/02/2003 5:10:26 AM PST by milan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Pleasant concept, however. But it's not science.

"I don't know how it started , but it started." <-----That's your version of science. That or "Evolution has nothing t do with how life started." That would be like saying "Gravity has nothing to do with mass."

107 posted on 11/02/2003 5:23:04 AM PST by milan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: milan
How does ID/creationism explain why dandelions produce flowers?
108 posted on 11/02/2003 5:28:19 AM PST by general_re ("I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: milan
Mathematics.

Plastics.

109 posted on 11/02/2003 7:37:50 AM PST by VadeRetro (Words are not crucifixes to chase away vampires.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
Your secular conditioning is strong. It's hard to break such things when they are set hard in your youth.
110 posted on 11/02/2003 8:00:07 AM PST by Held_to_Ransom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Now that was funny.
111 posted on 11/02/2003 8:06:11 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Held_to_Ransom
Your secular conditioning is strong.

What are you, Yoda?

112 posted on 11/02/2003 8:59:01 AM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
That too was funny. Did everyone get new writers?
113 posted on 11/02/2003 9:06:02 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
A Christian.
114 posted on 11/02/2003 9:27:04 AM PST by Held_to_Ransom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Held_to_Ransom
I happen to be a non-religious agnostic, leaning pretty strongly towards philosophical theism. But I don't accept the anti-intellectual notion that one was to embrace some putatively correct ideology to understand the views of a thinker. You have to be willing to consider perspectives that may differ from your own with varying measures of sympathy or detatchment, but you don't have to be "programmed" (or deprogrammed).

If you are it can be a problem. In attempting to understand Darwin, you are clearly more sympathetic to Fiske's perspective on Darwin than you are to Darwin's own expressed views. This may lead to a deep and subtle understanding of Fiske, but it only obscures your grasp of Darwin's own thinking.

115 posted on 11/02/2003 10:28:44 AM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: milan
I will play your game and then watch you explain it away. Mathematics. Heard of it?

Yes, I have. I suspect that you're about to go on some tirade on "probability" and invoke totally unrealistic probabilities in an attempt to "prove" that evolution is "statistically impossible".

Calculate the probability of mutations happening in this many species in a positive manner to yield "improved" results.

Yep, you did. Except that your argument is even less thought-out than the usual probability arguments. For one, it's far too inspecific. Are you referring to the probability of it occuring across all life forms on the planet? In that case, there are very good odds that amongst all the reproduction going on at any given time that there will be beneficial mutations. Maybe not as good as 50%, but certainly a measurable amount and even at smaller probabilities, the continued series of reproductions will result in additional beneficial mutations which increase the number of organisms with higher survival chances due to their beneficial mutations.

Math, you have heard of it, all sciences use it? All evolutionists dodge this fact.

No, the problem is that creationists often misuse it in an attempt to construct bogus arguments using false probabilities to "prove" that evolution is statistically impossible in much the same way that I could "prove" that it is statistically impossible that you were ever born.

You have a better chance of having a purple dragon flying out of your butt than of positive mutations happening over billions of years to create the mass number of species we have alive today.

Now you're just making things up. You've not even calculated the probabilities for beneficial mutations over millions of years, much less the probability of a purple dragon flying out of anyone's butt. That you use such vague and bizarre argument tactics tells me that you've pulled this "information" from a creationist reading material, but you've failed to do any of the calculations yourself.

It takes less faith to believe in Bigfoot (not the truck), those purple dragons, and lochness monster, and the gremlins that cause my computer to crash.

Okay. Why? Justify your answer.

explain to me how every species on this planet could have divided into two genders

Every species on this planet hasn't divided into two genders.

(please don't point to the few examples of asexual creatures).

Few? FEW?! Dual-genders only exist in kingdom Animalia! There are four other kingdoms!

If you're wanting to know how every animal species became multigendered, then you've already made an erroneous assumption. The gender-split didn't just happen to occur within multiple species at the same time, it happened in one spcies that branched off into the various multisexual organisms that we see today. If you have a question about how it really happened as opposed to your strawman scenario, I'll dig up some information for you.

How is it that 99.99999% of all species have a male and female?

99.99999% of all species don't have male and female distinction. Those species that do have such distinction do so because of a common ancestor that developed it, not because they all developed such on their own, individually.

How could that have "evolved" by cance mutations in separate species?

It didn't. See above.
116 posted on 11/02/2003 10:35:32 AM PST by Dimensio (The only thing you feel when you take a human life is recoil. -- Frank "Earl" Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: milan
"I don't know how it started , but it started." <-----That's your version of science.

Actually, that's just his personal explanation. A more "scientific" response would be "we have insufficient data to adequately formulate a theory on the ultimate origin of life -- though we do have a few competing hypothesis. Nonetheless, that life exists now and that physical evidence indicates that at one time this planet could not sustain life at all (and moreover, at one time this planet did not even exist) is sufficient cause to believe that there was a process by which the first life forms appeared on earth, even if we cannot yet explain that process."

That or "Evolution has nothing t do with how life started." That would be like saying "Gravity has nothing to do with mass."

No, it would be like saying "Gravity has nothing to do how mass (and energy, since matter and energy are ultimately the same thing) ultimately came into existence", which is accurate.
117 posted on 11/02/2003 10:42:03 AM PST by Dimensio (The only thing you feel when you take a human life is recoil. -- Frank "Earl" Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Actually, that's just his personal explanation.

Actually, I never said any of that. I don't know where that post came from.

118 posted on 11/02/2003 10:43:52 AM PST by PatrickHenry (A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Or try "Virtual Ignore.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Actually, I never said any of that. I don't know where that post came from.

Sorry. For some reason I got the crazy idea that he was honestly quoting you rather than misrepresenting your position. I should have known better.
119 posted on 11/02/2003 10:49:36 AM PST by Dimensio (The only thing you feel when you take a human life is recoil. -- Frank "Earl" Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
I sometimes say foolish things, but there are limits!
120 posted on 11/02/2003 10:51:47 AM PST by PatrickHenry (A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Or try "Virtual Ignore.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
A few good nuggets there. Thanks!
121 posted on 11/02/2003 11:04:12 AM PST by BiffWondercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
You didn't cite reading Fiske, but if you have, you haven't understood him, and certainly you show no evidence that you have read him. Neither have you read Darwin's last works, the ones he spent the last decades of his life working on, and the ones he was busy writing while others were organizing his old notes for edited hand picked trifles such as you prefer to consider most important to him.
122 posted on 11/02/2003 11:28:44 AM PST by Held_to_Ransom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
You didn't cite reading Fiske, but if you have, you haven't understood him, and certainly you show no evidence that you have read him. Neither have you read Darwin's last works, the ones he spent the last decades of his life working on, and the ones he was busy writing while others were organizing his old notes for edited hand picked trifles such as you prefer to consider most important to him.

But, you have answered my question as to whether or not your faith was as strong as Darwin's. It is clearly not. You have time though to learn. Hopefully a great deal of it.
123 posted on 11/02/2003 11:29:52 AM PST by Held_to_Ransom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Held_to_Ransom
I haven't read Fiske, only about him. Darwin's last book was about earthworms, and Darwin was most definitely NOT a man of "faith," except in his youth and young adulthood, as he himself made perfectly and explicitly clear. I have no idea what works (by Darwin) you are referring to. Possibly they were written by the author on the grassy knoll?
124 posted on 11/02/2003 11:39:17 AM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Held_to_Ransom
while others were organizing his old notes for edited hand picked trifles

Again, this is nut-job level nonsense. Most of Darwin's writings have long been available in COMPLETE AND UNEXPURGIATED editions for many years (the largest job, a complete edition of his correspondence, is well along with many volumes published), and the originals, in Darwin's own hand, have been available to scholars for decades.

125 posted on 11/02/2003 11:44:50 AM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

Yeah ... I know this is a quote conglomeration --- big deal (( fed case )) to the trivia - psuedo science cult FR freeks (( vs freeps )) !

126 posted on 11/02/2003 12:00:44 PM PST by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Just from memory, I don't think the quote is that badly butchered. Darwin -- despite the great confidence that he had developed in his theory over years of private study and contemplation, subjecting his ideas to rigorous self-criticism (there wasn't a single substantive critcism of his ideas that he had not, in some form, already considered and thought through) -- was typically hesitant, apologetic and understated in introducing his ideas to others.

There had been, and were at the time, many fatuous and overblown speculations on subjects such as the nature and origin of species, earth/cosmic history, and the like. Darwin didn't want to be classified with such dilletantes. He had a carefully constructed and sober case for his views, and the chance that it would be fairly considered was better if the initial presentation was "toned down".

127 posted on 11/02/2003 12:22:48 PM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Held_to_Ransom
nut-job level nonsense

Apologies, that was overly harsh. I guess what I'm trying to express is that you come across a bit like a Darwinian gnostic: suggesting that there is some "hidden" Darwin out there, only known to the initiate conversant with the "lost books." That's how you come across to me anyway. If you have a more sober or substantive case to make than I am percieving, I would be happy to hear it.

128 posted on 11/02/2003 12:32:10 PM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
W / o all the lies and frauds ... evolution would never have gotten off of the ground --- they still keep the hoax going !
129 posted on 11/02/2003 12:33:37 PM PST by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
Good. Look up his letters to John Fiske.
130 posted on 11/02/2003 12:36:19 PM PST by Held_to_Ransom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Dimensio; Stultis
I should have checked out the site first before posting it. Unfortunately some of the bad science used by Creationists is as difficult to kill as the bad science used by evolutionists.

I agree that the Burdick print and other Palauxy site prints are probably not human.

The whale's tilt is not amazing since the strata is tilted also, however it still seems likely that the whale was buried quickly to prevent decomposition.

Whale

Same thing with the Polystrate trees. The site Dimensio sent me to, acknowledges that the best explanation for polystrate trees is that the sediment formed in place around them over long periods and that they are not "misplaced". But unless I missed it , it doesn't explain why the tree didn't decompose over that long of period.

The point I was making was that there is an awful lot of wiggle room with evolution. Evolution is hard to falsify. If the results don't bear out the expected prediction, another natural explanation can easily be substituted.

131 posted on 11/02/2003 1:56:32 PM PST by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: general_re
How does ID/creationism explain why dandelions produce flowers?

How does evolution explain it? Please tell me, this should be good.

132 posted on 11/02/2003 2:02:10 PM PST by milan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Plastics.

Mechanics.

133 posted on 11/02/2003 2:02:49 PM PST by milan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
In that case, there are very good odds that amongst all the reproduction going on at any given time that there will be beneficial mutations.

No, there isn't.

134 posted on 11/02/2003 2:04:01 PM PST by milan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Stultis; js1138
Just from memory, I don't think the quote is that badly butchered...

If it's the one I think then it's from two different conversations with two different people, so the ellipses there are ellipsizing a lot. Not sure who researched that one. Maybe js1138?

135 posted on 11/02/2003 2:19:53 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: milan
How does evolution explain it?

Your theory, in order to replace the theory of evolution, should be better at explaining such things than evolution. I suspect that creationism can't explain why dandelions should produce flowers, beyond the trivial "God wanted it that way" reasoning. My suspicion is further reinforced by your declining to lay out how your theory explains such things. And that's why creationism never gets anywhere in the scientific world - because as bad as the theory of evolution may be, a bad explanation beats no explanation every time.

136 posted on 11/02/2003 2:24:25 PM PST by general_re ("I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: milan
No, there isn't.

Support for this assertion?
137 posted on 11/02/2003 2:34:58 PM PST by Dimensio (The only thing you feel when you take a human life is recoil. -- Frank "Earl" Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Stultis; VadeRetro
Yes the quote(s) are badly butchered. I spent a lot of time and some money aquiring the book from which the quotes were taken. They are not simply taken out of context. They are deliberately and consciously snipped from context and stitched together to imply the opposite of the author's intention. I have the original scanned pages somewhere and might post them if there is demand.
138 posted on 11/02/2003 4:18:22 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Few? FEW?! Dual-genders only exist in kingdom Animalia! There are four other kingdoms!

Plants have sex. Fungi kinda do.

139 posted on 11/02/2003 4:33:15 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Held_to_Ransom
Look up his letters to John Fiske.

Got any suggestions of where I can find them collected? Or which of them might be most important. There are only 15 letters from, to or concerning Fiske, and only 10 of those from Darwin to Fiske. Here is the complete list from the Darwin Correspondence Project:

Fiske, John to Darwin, C. R., [23 Oct 1871]
JF's indebtedness to Herbert Spencer
Darwin, C. R. to Darwin, Francis, [6 Nov 1871]
Asks who Fiske is
Darwin, C. R. to [Fiske, John], 9 Nov 1871
Thanks JF for his lectures, the arguments ...
Fiske, John to Darwin, C. R., 31 Oct 1873
Would like much to visit CD before returning ...
Darwin, C. R. to [Fiske, John], 3 Nov [1873]
CD is glad to hear of nature of JF's ...
Darwin, C. R. to [Fiske, John], 3 Nov 1874
Thanks JF for copy of Cosmic philosophy ...
Darwin, C. R. to [Fiske, John], 8 Dec [1874]
Praises JF's book [Cosmic ...
Fiske, John to Darwin, C. R., 15 Mar 1875
Thanks CD for Descent

...

Darwin, C. R. to Fiske, John, 21 Oct [1875]
Thanks for excellent notice of Chauncey Wright
Darwin, C. R. to [Fiske, John], 14 Jun [1879]
Will send carriage to station on 18th
Darwin, C. R. to Fiske, John, 10 Jun 1879
Invitation to Down for the 18th
Darwin, C. R. to Fiske, John, 5 Aug [1879]
Thanks for JF's book [Darwinism ...
Darwin, C. R. to Fiske, John, 17 Aug [1879]
Thanks JF again for his Essays, ...
Fiske, John to Darwin, C. R., 20 Apr 1880
Is coming to England to lecture and would ...
Darwin, C. R. to Fiske, John, 14 May [1880]
Invites JF to Down


140 posted on 11/02/2003 4:54:29 PM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Yes the quote(s) are badly butchered.

O.K. I don't really doubt it, especially considering the source. My only point really was that Darwin peppered his correspondence with self effacing comments like these. Anyone who has read many of Darwin's letters is familiar with comments like them, BUT is also equally aware that they do not actually reflect a lack of confidence on Darwin's part concerning evolution. Darwin was trying to disarm his correspondents long enough to get a fair hearing for his ideas, to draw out pertinent criticism, or (most often) to wheedle others into providing data, answering questions, or helping with experiments. Darwin was a prodigious charmer and wheedler. It's astonishing the amount of work he got others to undertake on his behalf: everyone from other scientists, to professional gardeners to pigeon fanciers. Not to suggest that Darwin was not hard worker himself.

141 posted on 11/02/2003 5:07:44 PM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: milan
No, there isn't.

You've been given, via link, examples of beneficial mutations. Now you're engaged in the virtual equivalent of holding your hands over your ears and intoning, "nah, nah, nah, nah; I can't hear you."

Furthermore, even ignoring directly or immediately beneficial mutations -- which nevertheless do occur, as has been proved to you -- the majority of mutations are neutral. Their accumulation within a specie's genome builds up a genetic diversity which is in itself beneficial, providing for future adaptive shifts, differential disease resistance, and the like.

142 posted on 11/02/2003 5:15:25 PM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Plants have sex. Fungi kinda do.

Well, yes, but I was under the impression that there's no distinct "male" and "female" plant, or if there are such, they're the exception rather than the rule.
143 posted on 11/02/2003 5:42:39 PM PST by Dimensio (The only thing you feel when you take a human life is recoil. -- Frank "Earl" Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Some have male and female plants, some don't.

Lecture on plant sex

144 posted on 11/02/2003 5:57:40 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
There are not on the net yet, but they are coming.

Here is a link to Fiske on Darwin. The site has a large number of articles by Fiske. The text below it is the last paragraph of the article. It is an obituary for Darwin written by Fiske an widely published in the US.

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?root=%2Fmoa%2Fatla%2Fatla0049%2F&tif=00843.TIF&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fmoa-cgi%3Fnotisid%3DABK2934-0049-165&coll=moa&frames=1&view=50

It is fitting that in the great Abbey, where rest the ashes of England’s noblest heroes, the place of the discoverer of natural selection should be near that of Sir Isaac Newton. Since the publication of the immortal Principia, no sci- entific book has so widened the mental horizon of mankind as the Origin of Species. Mr. Darwin, like Newton, was a very young man when his great discovery suggested itself to him. Like Newton, he waited many years before publishing it to the world. Like Newton, he lived to see it become part and parcel of the mental equipment of all men of science. The theological objection urged against the Newtonian theory by Leibnitz, that it substituted the action of natural causes for the immediate action of the Deity, was also urged against the Darwinian theory by Agassiz; and the same objection will doubtless continue to be urged against scien- tific explanations of natural phenomena so long as there are men who fail to comprehend the profoundly theistic and religious truth that the action of natural causes is in itself the immediate action of the Deity. It is interesting, however, to see that, as theologians are no longer frightened by the doctrine of gravitation, so they are already outgrowing their dread of the doctrine of natural selection. On the Sunday following Mr. Darwin’s death, Canon Liddon, at St. Paul’s Cathedral, and Canons Barry and Pro- thero, at Westminster Abbey, agreed in referring to the Darwinian theory as “not necessarily hostile to the fundamental truths of religion.” The effect of Mr. Darwin’s work has been, however, to remodel the theological conceptions 6f the origin and destiny of man which were current in former times. In this respect it has wrought a revolution as great as that which Copernicus in- augurated and Newton completed, and of very much the same kind. Again has man been rudely unseated from his im- aginary throne in the centre of the universe, but only that he may learn to see in the universe and in human life a rich- er and deeper meaning than he had before suspected. Truly, he who unfolds to us the way in which God works through the world of phenomena may well be called the best of religious teachers. In the study of the organic world, no less than in the study of the starry heavens, is it true that “day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge.”

- John Fiske.

You didn't really expect them to teach you this in the modern and secular USA, did you?
145 posted on 11/02/2003 6:44:55 PM PST by Held_to_Ransom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
Anyone who has read many of Darwin's letters is familiar with comments like them, BUT is also equally aware that they do not actually reflect a lack of confidence on Darwin's part concerning evolution.

You have that right. The problem with this particular"quotation" is that it is pieced together from two unrelated leters, and omits the context. The first part of the quotation appears to be the start of a sentence, but in fact it begins in midsentence. That's just the beginning of the fraud.

146 posted on 11/02/2003 6:50:43 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

P L A C E M A R K E R
147 posted on 11/02/2003 7:17:25 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Held_to_Ransom
the profoundly theistic and religious truth that the action of natural causes is in itself the immediate action of the Deity

But this is Fiske's interpretation of Darwin, which is fine, but it is NOT Darwin's view. Darwin remained indecisive and wavering about the issue of "design" throughout the later part of his life, but he was consistently resistant to the notion that divine intention was to be found in the specific details of selection and variation. For Darwin the divine intent, if it was there, was expressed in general laws. He made this distinction often. See his correspondence on the subject with the American botanist Asa Gray. There is an article concerning their debate here.

148 posted on 11/03/2003 2:58:52 AM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
"DATA" science tells us this earth is millions of years old. The Bible speaks of "ages" one prior to "flesh man" when the dinosaurs existed.

I have a small rock on my monitor that has fossils in it and the snails in it look just like the snails I find today.

The Bible says "kind after kind" just like we see today, except when man starts adapting - mixing various "kinds".

Man who tries to make the "WORD" say, this earth is "six" thousands years old give up their credibility cause "science" can show the data that is not fact. Now "flesh man" or "man in the flesh" comes pretty close to that number but not the "age" of this earth.

149 posted on 11/03/2003 5:02:35 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"references" "flesh man's" or "divine". The data - evidence show that fossilized creatures such as snails, etc., that still survive are the same today. That gives proof - evidence of "kind after kind". Not all species survived, what we do not find in fossils to those that do survive is a disorganized evolution which could only be the case if "evolution" is what is going on.

The "natural" order of things continues. Gravity has not evolved. The sun still rises the same and those laws of nature have not "evolved" and if evolution was a fact all things would be in disorder to the point that "man" itself and all creatures would each be in a state of evolution.

Evolution the "theory" of either is organized or disorganize and that is left out of the equation. If organized or follows that natural order who "ORDERED" it? If it is not organized then true evolution would show up in the data.

The knowledge of recent data of DNA should wake alot of people up. DNA removes all credibility of "evolution" cause "evolution" itself is disorder not order. There is no making a mistake of "human" DNA to the other creatures DNA.

The mind can choose to believe anything or nothing and that does not make the belief a fact. The "theory" of evolution came out of, figuring out that those who claimed this earth was six thousand years old were just plain wrong.

Evolution is a religion, a religion is what one believes and puts their faith into.

So rather than finding out if in fact that is what is "WRITTEN" the whole thing was rejected and "flesh man" devised his own ideas as to age of earth, with some facts, and how living creatures got here. However, rejecting a "CREATOR", one who is in control was in fact the foundation of their "THEORY".

Some were in fact, created in the flesh with "freewill" so they will do what they do, doesn't make it fact or truth.

150 posted on 11/03/2003 6:31:39 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-250 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson