Skip to comments.The Problem With Evolution
Posted on 09/26/2005 5:44:09 AM PDT by DARCPRYNCE
Charles Darwin, the 19th century geologist who wrote the treatise 'The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection' defined evolution as "descent with modification". Darwin hypothesized that all forms of life descended from a common ancestor, branching out over time into various unique life forms, due primarily to a process called natural selection.
However, the fossil record shows that all of the major animal groups (phyla) appeared fully formed about 540 million years ago, and virtually no transitional life forms have been discovered which suggest that they evolved from earlier forms. This sudden eruption of multiple, complex organisms is often referred to as the Cambrian Explosion, and even Darwin knew about the lack of evidence in the fossil record to support his theory a century and a half ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at chronwatch.com ...
That is a long ways from the abiogenesis origens fobbed off on the minds full of mush youth.
"Perhaps... either that or I signed up years ago, then forgot all about the place. Either way, I've been posting here regularly for the past several months."
God is not religion. A religion is a belief system requiring a certain amount of blind faith, and while most are based upon a belief in a supreme being, some are not. It takes just as much faith to believe in one unproved theory as it does to believe in another, regardless of whether or not God is included in the equation.
It's my opinion that all reasonable theories concerning the origin of life should be taught in schools, however, they should be confined to philosophy classes.
follow the link.
"100 million -vs- over a billion. Not exactly showing your knowledge of history with that one."
What makes you think that a billion people have been killed because of religion?
"It takes just as much faith to believe in one unproved theory as it does to believe in another, regardless of whether or not God is included in the equation."
Thanks. I did follow the link, and found this:
"About the Writer: Edward Daley is a freelance writer who resides in New England. He is owner of the website, The Daley Times-Post, which can be accessed at: "
My question remains: What are the author's qualifications for writing about the theory of evolution and Intelligent Design? That question is not answered at that link, so I asked our poster, who claims this to be his writing.
I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the evolutioists insisting that creation/ID not be taught just because THEY don't believe in it. They're doing the same thing they comdemn in creatonists. This is like the Scopes trial in reverse. At first all the evolutionists wanted was equal time for their theory. Now look where we've arrived. They tell us that fossils STRONGLY SUPPORT evolution and yet treat it as fact after they tell us that you can't prove anything in science. I can't believe that they feel free to attack someone's world view and then be surprised when there's a reaction. They may know a lot about evolution but seem to be lacking in knowledge of human nature.
Ha ha. No. No meltdown. Just sick and tired of brainless creationists soiling the good name of "conservative."
Saying something has no natural explanation because it is complex is not scientific, it is capitulation. ID offers no scientific insight that is not included in other theories that do not require reworking all of science to make it fit.
"Evolution has nothing to do with the belief in a divine being or the Biblical rendition of creation."
Yet it is still as religious in nature as believing in a creator of all things, because one has to have a certain amount of blind faith in an unproved theory in order to believe it. Religions are belief systems, and not all of them require a belief in God. Furthermore, ID and Creationism are two separate theories. The fact that they both suppose that a creator is responsible for all life, doesn't make them identical.
Did the god of your parody religion die for you? The point I'm making is that a religious statement has no factual basis in reality. Anyone can claim anything and it is impossible to disprove them. It can be said of anything. Elves, Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Tooth Fairy, Humpty Dumtpy are all real. Can you disprove this?
I understand the skepticism. Whats different though is that he's listed his resources. I found that helpful.
If a person doesnt like what he writes at least then a person can see if the information he's sourcing is credible (relative judgement).
ID is the same as creationism. Ever hear of the Wedge document? ID is a back door attempt to introduce creationism in schools. A lot of creationist organizations, like the Discovery Institute, have people saying that the designer in ID is the God of the Bible. You can't get more religious than that and it shows that ID is the code term for creationism.
The trouble with ID is that, even though many of the theories are equally untenable, they keep trying to twist the logic to make them usable.
If you think that is only true in this particular field of study, you haven't been following the discussions/ arguments/ research in the realm of high energy physics and cosmology (quarks, gluons, WIMPs, "dark matter", superstrings, superstructure, chronons, etc...) during the past few decades. So many of those concepts and hypotheses have been incredibly counter to Occam's Razor, not to say anything about how poorly they fit data and observations - but they keep trying to twist them into further knots...
Even the sacred Hubble "constant" is now under honest attack from some quarters as a result - finally.
Oh, I read the "article." It was amateurish crap. It was filled with a description of the science that was so far removed from reality as to be essentially a lie. (And that's not just the portions, like the description of the Cambrian Explosion, that weren't a complete joke.) In fact, it was to the real science of biology and evolution what child's scribble is to a photograph.
In the first place, Intelligent Design theory has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
Bullcrap. Where did this supposed Intelligent designer come from? Further, hang around here for a few days and one of these religious kooks will let you in on the secret that it's their way of getting Genesis read as science. (Shhhhh. The "Designer" is Jehovah, you're just not supposed to say it. First Amendment and all...)
Secondly, Evolution theory, no matter how well understood you may think it is - and it isn't very well understood by most people - or how well established in the scientific community, it's still NOT FACT, and anyone who suggests otherwise, is an imbecile.
No, Evolution is a fact. Just as Gravity is a fact. The Theory of Evolution (i.e., the modern synthesis) is the theory that explains that fact. And anyone who claims not to believe in evolution is, in the words of the esteemed Prof. Dawkins, "ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
I'm going to have to scroll through your forum posts to see if its possible for you to actually post a comment without making a disparaging comment towards someone.
If I feel like I have all the answers I can just read an evo thread and realize there are people much "smarter" than me because they'll tell me they are. Usually they do it with as much sarcasm as possible.
Hey, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel about the article, OK?
"I disagree with your statement. On one hand, we have a theory of evolution, with a pretty obvious set of evidentiary fossils to look at."
ID does not disregard the fossil evidence. In fact, it explains it better than Evolution does.
"On the other hand, we have various human religions, each with its own creation story."
Which are no different, fundamentally, than the evolution story, which is just as unsupported by the facts.
"The two things are very, very different, indeed. Many people do have the faith required to believe in supernatural entities. Others do not and rely on physical evidence."
Yet, the physical evidence does not support the theory that life came about completely by random chance, out of lifeless chemicals, and then evolved into many different organisms.
Furthermore, just because science cannot prove the existence of a creator doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. It simply means that human beings have limited abilities to discover the nature of life.
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.