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 ...
No it's not BS. It's how ALL of science is done. Theories are developed with the information available at hand. The same thing is done in quantum mechanics, gravity, chemistry, astronomy, geology, biology, etc. As we learn more, the theories are refined. As more is learned, things get changed. With respect to evolution, there is nothing that has refuted evolution and simultaneously has satisfactorally explained things in biology as well as evolution has.
I thought it was the LAW of Gravitation, not the THEORY of Gravition.
"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 .."
Evolution has a preponderance of evidence available to indicate its an accurate rendition of biological diversity on this planet.
Should you choose to ignore it, its your choice. If, on the other hand, you choose to present a theological perspective in a science course you are doing both disciplines a disservice.
In the U.S.'s current deplorably politically correct environment, we will have to present other theological views of life's origin besides the Bible in science classes also - the Hindu version, the Buddhist version, etc. All of which will create an unnecessary digression from the subject at hand with extraneous subjects.
Science belongs in science classes and theology belongs in theology classes.
If you can reconcile evolution and belief in the Bible, as I and very many other biologists do, all well and good. If you can't that's your choice. But imposing your own particular religious - or non-religious - perspective in the science classroom is wrong. Keep it in the theology classroom where it belongs.
If intelligent design means that God used Evolution to create man, then I can buy it. But again, its theology, not religion. When atheist biologists state man is the product of a mere series of fortuitous accidents and this proves God had no part in man's creation, they are intruding into the theological domain and should be censured and stopped.
The belief - or disbelief - in God, has no place in science.
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.
In order for science to categorically state that God does not exist, all know facts about the entire universe would have to be known. We haven't got there yet.
Maybe moog is refreing to things like the dragonflies from the Cambrian that had 2 foot wingspans. It was estimated that the atmosphere may have been as high as 40% oxygen back then. That's the concentration necessary for such large insects to respire and survive.
It's possible.
In fact, I often attempt to have insightful conversations with those whose posting makes them sure in their faith, in order to determine what it is, exactly, that they believe and why. They sometimes provide for enlightening conversations, but they often avoid, obfuscate and skate around the key issues until they give up.
Some times, though, I just greet ignorance with scorn, especially when the same claims "disproving" evolution are made again and again and again.
the basic theory of evolution, as it relates to the origins of life on Earth
The TOE says nothing about the origins of life. But then you and Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith already knew that.
My qualifications are that I am able to read, and that I actually understand what I read. I also have the ability to reason and hypothesize. Tell me, what qualified Charles Darwin, a 19th century geologist, to write a treatise on the nature of complex living systems when he didn't even know what cells were made of?
By the way, if I was ever banned from this place, nobody told me about it, and if they did ban me for some reason as yet unexplained, they certainly seem to have changed their minds.
LOL... Well, what do you expect me to do? Calling it "non-traditional scholarship" would be a bit too subtle, I'd think.
"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. "
You have made the principal error that creationists make regarding the theory of Evolution. The theory of Evolution says absolutely nothing about the origins of life. It deals only with speciation.
The reality is that the origins of the beginnings of life are unknown at this point. Suppositions have been made, but there is no widely-accepted theory regarding this.
By making this most common of errors, you reveal your lack of knowledge of the Theory of Evolution. In doing so, you destroy your entire argument.
You also, in your article, demonstrate a lack of knowledge regarding the "Cambrian Explosion." This further diminishes your article.
It is very simple. If you believe in the Creation story, as laid out in Genesis, simply say you so believe. Attempting to turn that story into some sort of science is a waste of your time. Just say you are a creationist and be done with it. It is a matter of faith.
If you plan to counter the Theory of Evolution, then more study will be needed on your part, since you apparently don't understand the very basics of the theory. After that, you will need to study the current evidence...not on creationist websites...but from the publications of science. At that point, when you actually become an expert on Evolution, you can begin to criticize the theory.
The moment you claim that the TOE attempts to explain life's origin, then you identify yourself as another of the long line of folks who are arguing against something they don't even understand at the definitionary level.
"Evolution has a preponderance of evidence available to indicate its an accurate rendition of biological diversity on this planet."
Really, where is that evidence? I'd like to see it.
I agree with WildHorseCrash. The information in the article is extremely outdated, even by creationist standards. Each point has been clearly refuted and cited by some of the hard core evolution posters here before. It's a rehash of some very outdated and misleading information.
Newton's "Universal Law of Gravitation" is a theory of gravity. It seeks to describe and explain the fact of gravity. It has been superceded/supplanted/augmented (depending on the degree of specificity you desire) by Einstein's work.
"You have made the principal error that creationists make regarding the theory of Evolution. The theory of Evolution says absolutely nothing about the origins of life. It deals only with speciation."
Nonsense. The theory of evolution assumes that life began by random chance, out of lifeless chemicals, and then branched out into many different forms from a single organism.
"Really, where is that evidence? I'd like to see it."
You haven't seen it? Yet you claim to be able to refute it? Oh, you have much to do...much to do. I'd start by reading a couple of books on an elementary level regarding the TOE. That would be a good start. You can then read some more advanced material. Follow that up with visits to large natural history museums.
Remember...before you can refute a theory, you must understand that theory. It is clear that you do not. So, it's time to start some serious reading that does not come from creationist or ID sources.
My guess is that the probability of that happening approaches zero.
"The theory of evolution assumes that life began by random chance, out of lifeless chemicals, and then branched out into many different forms from a single organism.
"
No, it does not.
"In order for science to categorically state that God does not exist, all know facts about the entire universe would have to be known. We haven't got there yet."
Which is exactly my point.
Rocks, a whole box of rocks.
Well, thats why I suggested a walk. If you cant handle the fact that evo is not accepted by everyone then maybe the discussion isnt good for you to be a part of. There are plenty of other threads to join in on. Ones that cause you so much stress cant be good for your health.
I seriously doubt your namecalling brings more people into the evo flock.
---------
Your other comment:
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)."
Let me fix this for you:
No, God created the universe is a fact, just as Jesus came to this earth and died for your sins is a fact. The Holy Bible explains that fact. And anyone who claims not to believe in this is, in the words of God, “a fool”.
Look it up.
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.