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

Skip to comments.

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life (Creationists have been saying this for decades!)
New Scientist ^ | January 21, 2009 | Graham Lawton

Posted on 02/24/2009 6:37:38 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-202 next last

1 posted on 02/24/2009 6:37:38 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; metmom; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; GourmetDan; MrB; valkyry1; DaveLoneRanger; ...

Notice that New Scientist admits that Darwin’s theory would not have gotten off the ground without the acceptance of his so-called “Tree of Life.” Creation Scientists have been pointing out that Darwin’s tree did not fit the evidence ever since its inception. If you read Origins, you will note that Darwin could not supply any scientific data to back up his tree—it was purely hypothetical. And yet the Evos bought it, hook, line and sinker. Not surprisingly, the article makes no mention of the fact that Creation Scientists (and more recently ID Scientists) have been pointing out the lack of evidence for Darwin’s tree for over 150 years.


2 posted on 02/24/2009 6:38:53 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

There was a tree of life...it was in the Garden.

I’m just saying...


3 posted on 02/24/2009 6:39:16 AM PST by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Ya really got ‘em goin’ yesterday, GGG!
4 posted on 02/24/2009 6:39:53 AM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for posting.


5 posted on 02/24/2009 6:41:27 AM PST by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

6 posted on 02/24/2009 6:47:16 AM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cedric

Yep, they keep getting angrier and angrier. That says alot about how much confidence they place in their so-called “theory.”


7 posted on 02/24/2009 6:48:50 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool

Excellent graphic! The gaps are pretty much the same as they were 150 years ago. What does that say about the predictive value of Darwin’s “theory” of evolution?


8 posted on 02/24/2009 6:51:07 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Isnt Tree of Life part of ID ? They all pass the design detection meaning commonality. Is this Creation vs ID?


9 posted on 02/24/2009 6:51:10 AM PST by sickoflibs (Keynesian Economics : "If you won't spend your money WE WILL!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
And since quotations make 'em really flip out...

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."

Dr. T. N. Tahmisian

10 posted on 02/24/2009 6:54:17 AM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

You’re totally misreading it. The problems being found currently with the “Tree of Life” were not comprehensible to Darwin or creationists, and the solution is no closer to short-earth creationism, and in fact explains away many of the problems which have plagued evolution. The fact that more highly evolved organisms may be chimeras of other organisms, for instance, explains complications of features which mere sexual selection could not.

The Tree of Life was helpful in getting the general public to understand Darwin, but it was not the evidence for Darwin.

— An “Old-Earth” creationist.


11 posted on 02/24/2009 6:54:59 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

==There was a tree of life...it was in the Garden.

Quite true, but that’s a different tree. Let’s not forget, that Creationists predict not a tree of life, but an orchard of trees, with each organism being created separately, fully formed and fully functional. Take away the the hypothetical cross webbing in the new “Web of Life” the Evos are now postulating with respect to horizonal gene transfer, and that is pretty much what you are left with, an orchard of trees!


12 posted on 02/24/2009 6:55:46 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
There was a tree of life...it was in the Garden.

I’m just saying...

There is another tree of life, Revelation.
And we will partake of this tree.

Had a friend, (killed in car wreck recently) who once told me he knew what fruit was on this tree. He said it had to be a Main-go tree because he loved them so much.

13 posted on 02/24/2009 6:57:29 AM PST by buck61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dangus

The Creation Scientists have been pointing to far more than just DNA evidence. But come to think of it, they have been pointing to the DNA evidence for quite some time now as well.


14 posted on 02/24/2009 6:57:33 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Evolution is not compatible with Christianity...


15 posted on 02/24/2009 6:58:03 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus
but it was not the evidence for Darwin.

They sure as hell sold it that way.

16 posted on 02/24/2009 6:58:25 AM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cedric

Excellent quote. And oh so true! Just goes to show that the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism is not based on science...it’s a religion. And the sooner Christians wake up to this fact, the better....and when they do, watch out!


17 posted on 02/24/2009 6:59:42 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The "tree of life" has always been just a metaphor to assist in explaining Darwin's ideas, not his core idea. The article argues that it is too simple and reality is much more complicated.

But what if species also routinely swapped genetic material with other species, or hybridised with them? ....We now know that this is exactly what happens.

This is even more of a problem than the tree of life for those who treat the Bible as a science book.

18 posted on 02/24/2009 6:59:54 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DManA

==This is even more of a problem than the tree of life for those who treat the Bible as a science book.

Not at all, Creation Scientists have been positing horizontal gene transfer as a possible purpose for ERVs for years.


19 posted on 02/24/2009 7:02:15 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DManA

“The “tree of life” has always been just a metaphor...”

One could say, a religious icon or relic, like the Catholics have, to make their religion more real and palatable. That makes sense to me. Every religion needs their relics. Mine is the Holy Scripture.


20 posted on 02/24/2009 7:02:39 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-202 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