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 ...
"You haven't seen it? Yet you claim to be able to refute it?"
If it were actual proof, I wouldn't be able to refute it.
That is not what evolution is about. As MinrealMan has said before, you do not even know the basic definition of evolution. Evolution is the theory that explains how new species emerge and diverge from other species. It has nothing to do with the origin of life. That is a field called abiogenesis. To say evolution concerns the origin of life is another creationist lie. Even Darwin's book was titled "the Origin of Species" not "The Origin of Life." Educate yourself before posting creationsist trash.
That's about as false a statement as I've seen recently.
Natural selection is the theory developed to account for observed phenomena. Not the other way around.
"If it were actual proof, I wouldn't be able to refute it."
Proof? You want proof? No, I can't give you that, which is why the TOE is a theory. There's plenty of EVIDENCE, however. That exists in abundance. I offered you some places where such evidence may be viewed with your own eyes.
Show me evidence of YOUR theory. I have not seen it. Which museum may I attend to view the physical evidence of creationism, please? How about ID? I will go there.
The problem with evolution is that it has become a state funded religion.
TOE starts today explains that we evolved from something as a result of our environment and we are to continue to evolve. The facts remain that we can date and reasonably demonstrate the evolution of many species dating back millions of years. Scientifically, I am very confident that at one time, birds were a reptillian species and that mammals were originally born of the see and amphibians bridge some gaps. Curiously, the "missing link" leaves questions and challenges the theory of "HUMAN evolution." I am not Morman (they work to disprove evolution) and I am not cynical or nieve. There are as many scientifically unanswered questions about where we came from and why as there are theoritical ID and/or creationist explanations for the same. Facts are nothing more than overwhelmingly mojority held beliefs. If 99% believe it to be true, then it can be fact. Prove what you want, but try to convince a blind man that an object is red.
Faith begins where proof of fact ends. As such, there will always be room for science and faith. Me thinks that in 2000 years, the unanswered scientific questions will still be proof enough for some that there is an omnipitant being and that his name is God.
I believe in God, therefore I believe God created everything. I do not understand how he did it. But it is good.
The complexity of life is evidence enough for some people to believe in creation. And you don't have to go to a museum to see it. It can be found in most research labs. Why do evolutionists not consider that to be a valid evidence for creation but consider the fossilized skeletons of dead animals to be evidence for theirs? Fossils show that something was once alive and now is dead. It's human reasoning that puts them in a certain order and declares that it supports an idea they have.
MineralMan, PatickHenry and Ichneumon, we have the actual author of a ChronWatch article refuting evolution. Just wanted to give you guys a heads up in case you wanted to "play" with him a bit. I realize there are a lot of crevo articles this morning, so, in advance, I understand your reluctance if I don't see you on this thread.
Agreed, but why the utter disdain for those of us that do believe?
What are you, 12 or 13? The is more historical evidence for the life of Jesus Christ than for Julius Caeser.
Does anyone else think that there was life on other plantets in our solar system and that the suns adjustments is the factor that creates and destroys life?
Thanks. Many people believe that a deity created the universe and created life. Many of those same people believe that evolution and other natural mechanisms are why it looks like it does today. There's really nothing barring those who have a belief in a deity from believing in the Theory of Evolution or any of the other sciences which attempt to explain things like Geology.
I have no argument with people's beliefs. My only argument is with the misrepresentation of what the Theory of Evolution discusses and the misrepresentation of the actual physical evidence used to support that theory.
Every religion has its creation story. All involve supernatural events. I, personally, disbelieve in supernatural events and entities, so I treat those stories as mythology. Others believe otherwise. More power to them.
Beliefs, however, are not proper subject for discussion in science classrooms. Such discussions belong in philosopy classes.
The maturity level on this sight never ceases to amaze me. Believe what you will, but you do not hear the disdain for other faiths coming out of the mouths of TRUE Christians. If you choose to believe that you came from a monkey, fine, that is your choice. But the fact does not change that the bible has over fifty authors, was written over the course of 1500 years and still cannot be disputed. Sure you can come up with something along the lines of your microwave... yadda, yadda, yadda, but really do you find that witty? I will state as I did in a previous post, there is more historical evidence for the life and works of Jesus Christ than Julius Caeser. Feel free to do the research...
Picked up a text on evolution, genetics, phyllogeny, etc.
There is convincing fossil evidence for the evolution of horses, elephants, and even human beings in the geological strata with simplier forms advancing to more complex forms.
There are numerous anatomical indicators of close biological relationships which pint to a common ancestor.
As for the article's assertion that other phylla than those currently represented, never existed, I suggest you check out some books on the Burgess Shale fauna. There WERE other creatures living millenia ago which fit into no current category of existing creatures AND some that did.
The problem with "proving" evolution is a difficult one if one were to use customary scientific tools. The time frames involved exceed the mere few thousand years of recorded human history, and certainly far exceed the term of modern science. Consequently one is forced to draw conclusions from circumstantial evidence, as it were.
And that circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
More direct evidence is the case of pathogenic microorganism which evolve from forms which afflcit animals to those which are capable of attacking people - e.g. smallpox from cow-pox, hog influenza into human influenza, and the current concern involving avian flu and the transmission to humans.
There are also cases involving pathogenic organisms which evolve into forms which are antibiotic resistant.
Are these cases of evolution into "new" species? No. But they provide evidence of the potential for mutability of species and traits in response to environmental factors.
Where do you get that from? There is only 1 marginally account from Josephus that is independent of the Bible. There are historical documents from the Roman Empire supporting the existence of Julius. Aside from the Bible, where is any archeological evidence or historical evidence?
Ahem - we could have a discussion about that...
Creation is very explicitly described in the Puranas and mentioned clearly in the Bhagavad Gita. Evolution of species is definitely not the method explained in the Vedas. According the the Vedic teachings, what evolves in the soul, through transmigration, as the soul is given a chance to inhabit a variety of bodies, until reaching the human form. Then, if the soul uses the increased opportunity in the human form to search out God, he will again get a human form until he fully surrenderes his will with God's in love.
But, if the soul rejects the opportunity afforded by the human form of life and lives an animal-like existence (living just for the satisfaction of the senses and mind), he will be de-volved into a lower type of life form. IOW, the soul will then get born into a lower type of body.
It states in the Puranas very clearly how creation takes place, and evolution is not the method.
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.