Posted on 02/22/2009 10:58:04 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Evolution, the theory, is called more properly “The Origin of Species.” That was Darwin’s title.
Evolution requires change over a period of time. Time then, by deductive reasoning must also have a beginning.
The flaw in the evolutionist logic is that life did not come from the earth, because the earth came from somewhere else as well.
Life came from somewhere else...
The notion that children need to be indoctrinated and badgered into thinking a certain way is the insecurity of adults, a universal dissatisfaction with mortality reaching out for an eternal ideal. Whether this is done by atheists or by the religious, it is exactly the same.
Man did not come from apes... Man supposedly came from a common ancestor - the “missing link” Louis Leaky searched Olduvai Gorge 30 years in vain for...
But the singularity of all life is the DNA molecule according to modern science. All living things have it. With DNA being like the singularity of the “big bang” theory, evolutionists make the inadvertent admission life is some sort of immaculate conception. (pun intended)
I can...
The only thing that makes man civilized is the ability for the weakest to kill the strongest.
Nature is pure war, with every man against another. Fear of death is the only way to keep peace; so man is civilized by the restraint of violence against him for trangressions upon his neighbor.
Science fiction must seem to be very logical...
Reality does not have to be, reality has nothing to prove..
Adam and Eve can seem to be myth but so can men coming from a monkey... No really.. ultimately from a "mud hole" of proteins.. that magically became Life.. and THEN became monkeys..
If the third human on earth did NOT come from the first two..
A very creative Yarn MUST be spun.. to explain it..
Life is not DNA.
Having DNA is a characteristic or description of living things much like the ability to reproduce, etc. - but it doesn't tell anyone what life "is."
As betty boop and I have said on many threads, information (Shannon: successful communication) is the difference between life and non-life/death in nature.
The Shannon mathematical theory of communications is the foundation of "Information Theory" - a branch of math.
And under Shannon's model, information is the reduction of uncertainty (Shannon entropy) in the receiver (or molecular machine) as it goes from a before state to an after state.
It is not the message (DNA) but the successful communication of it. When the living organism stops communicating it is dead.
Have you read how he did it? He went back, year after year, to search for bones that had been eroded from the soil by wind and rain. The missing link (or links) will emerge eventually. A million years or so of volcanic soil-building takes awhile to erode.
Leaky hardly searched in vain: much has been found, catalogued and added to the physical encyclopedia of our origins.
"...Man did not come from apes..."
The answer to that is at the end of your fingers. If you look, you will see various shapes. The preponderant shape is the "arch" type fingerprint. The lower anthropoids you dismiss so readily also have "arch" type fingerprints. Like humans, they, too, can be positively identified through fingerprints.
Why do we share so many physical attributes, and even some emotional attributes? (Like loneliness) Why have fingerprints been retained (IMO) for humans, or why are they shared in the first place?
Criminals who have had their fingerprints removed are hardly physically handicapped in any manner that I can see. Their ability to manage hand tools is unimpeded.
We hardly need them on our palms and feet, but there they are! Why should they be so similar—even down to fingerprint shapes?
Your behavior on these threads says more about your immaturity than anything you have to say about others.
Your ridicule is doing less to make your opponents look bad than it does to you yourself.
Man did not evolve from apes. Man supposedly has a common ancestor with apes...
Just like I said... You need to study evolutionary theory a little more in detail...
For this "evidence" to be dispositive, you would need to show that a similarity of form necessarily proves common descent.
It may well be that Nature, ever parsimonious and efficient, uses only a finite number of "forms" in biology. Indeed, IIRC from Stephen Wolfram's A New Kind of Science (2002), the number of general biological "body plans" that have be observed in Nature, directly or though fossils, is amazingly small, 14 or so.
Perhaps some would argue that the paucity of general body plans is yet further "evidence" of common descent. But that would be a circular argument that can prove nothing except some people are pre-committed to this doctrine, and the faulty line of reasoning used to defend it.
In short, for common descent to be "true," we need to show a bit more than formal resemblances among species.
I'm not "against" the idea of common descent. I just don't think the way the problem as typically imagined by your standard neo-Darwinist is particularly illuminating. FWIW.
My point exactly... in a different vein...
If evolutionists jeeringly claim the creationists believe in a flying spaghetti monster, then evolutionists must believe in a magical boiling primordial pot of spaghetti sauce.
The earth came from somewhere else, as all things in the universe are in motion. Life also came from somewhere else and it will not always exist (that is of course, unless evolutionists believe in eternal life).
Logic eludes a lot of them...
How would evolutionists feel about teaching life came from outer space? The public schools already teach the "big bang theory.
There is also no evidence at all that any species was not brought here or engineered by extraterrestrials.
What great faith.
I recall reading that some 50 phyla or body plans "suddenly" appeared in the Cambrian explosion and all but about 30 of them didn't make it.
More astonishing than that, there have been no new body plans since. One must ask why that is so if evolution continues apace?
That Wolfram reduced the basic body plans to 14 instead of those numbers doesn't surprise me either. Cellular automata is more structured IMHO than self-organizing complexity. And of course it is forward looking rather than backward looking like taxonomy.
Studying "in great detail" for a pre-Med degree (and particularly Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy) has opened my eyes.
Ultimately, my career in medical studies was cut short by my inabilities in Organic Chemistry; later, subscriptions to scientific periodicals—and a completed career in Forensic Science—has helped to confirm the elegance of evolutionary "theory".
"...One must ask why that is so if evolution continues apace...?
1) We know that blue-eyed mankind didn't exist until about 10,000 years ago. Perhaps it was selected-for a light-gathering advantage in the upper latitudes of northern Europe: perhaps it was selected-for "sex appeal". In any case, "Demograpics is Destiny", as stated in Rummy's rules.
IOW, blue-eyed people are being selected-against by malignant forces of Humanity. (In case you hadn't noticed). The blue-eyed people of the world will be phased-out through no fault of Darwin's. Through DNA, future Paleontologists will record the actual period through which those non-fit, blue-eyed, people lived.
2) Evolution does continue "apace": most significantly among Insecta. (As our generation observes).
"...What great faith...
Not really. My faith in Darwin was disclosed to me in small increments. One could say it "evolved".
To become a medical doctor, Evolution must be studied and observed.
(While Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy is one of many Electives, Embryology is not normally an Elective).
Darwin's is a very elegant "theory" that every medical doctor in the US must study and can expect to apply directly or indirectly every day: Veterinarians, too, of course.
Scientologists and 7th-day Adventists, as just two examples, are not strongly attached to Science, Medicine, or Evolution. But then, I don't know any who are medical doctors, either.
:-\
Does not....
Commonalities speak just as much to a common designer as they do to a common process.
In all of this, though, rings the words of a 70’s song with the line “God save the people from despair.”
Too often we are slow to communicate ideas to the regular folk. But Jesus thanked His Father that He had revealed the things of the Kingdom of Heaven to the simple, and not to the worldly wise.
These wise ones reject the truth of the Kingdom, not because they are busy seeking truth, but because they are not of His children to begin with....and most never will be.
Our God who can raise up children of Abraham from these stones....
Our God who can raise up children of Abraham from these stones....
Scientists understand this very important principle - and yet atheists who advocate their worldview under the color of science seem to ignore it or use it whichever is convenient to their objective at the time.
Ditto for the principle, very important in physics, that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The one advocating either a worldview or a theory in the historical sciences (anthropology, archeology, evolution, Egyptology, etc.) is liable to use it or the opposite of it, whichever is convenient at the time.
Ditto for the choice of probability - combinatorics or Bayesian - depending on which one in convenient at the time, to argue for or against a worldview or theory.
Ditto for complexity models, whichever is convenient.
But when any such thing is used to argue about God, it is all vanity, because...
That a person can perceive a correlation or coincidence in nature does not establish cause/effect or prove that God did not do it either through nature or by supernaturally intervening in nature. It only establishes that that particular coincidence or correlation exists in nature. As Einstein said "Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous."
And there is only one way to know of a certainty that God is the Creator. But just like I cannot know your mind, man cannot know the mind of God except as God Himself reveals it to him.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. - I Corinthians 2:6-16
And no doubt there are many who would demand equal spiritual perception as well. But that too is vanity.
God reveals Himself according to His own will, selectively and not equally.(emphasis mine:)
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. - John 1:12-13
If so, you have added another reason (as if we need another) to never darken the door of a MD.
Steering clear of MDs has done wonders for me and my family, and this could explain why. There are still a few good doctors out there, but none seem to have been added in the last 30 years or so. All the recent additions to the fold have learned to profit from death, and understand that to cure is to go bankrupt. Give them drugs to disguise their symptoms, and as a bonus, each and every drug adds new ailments to the patient's woes, requiring even more drugs to disguise, but never ever curing a soul.
Viva Evolution! Product of the new 'science' and the new 'morality.'
"...The find casts important new light on the evolution of humanity’s upright stride, suggesting that Homo erectus, an ancestral species that emerged about 1.8 million years ago, walked with an upright gait little different from our own..."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article5812463.ece
While you are definitely not going to want to call this slope-browed, hairy guy "Dad", his gait and footprint is just like our own.
On another note, I found it interesting that most humans' little toe never touchs the ground! (Ask your Podiatrist).
This is consistent with the model for mammalian species to have five fingers and five toes. (Or, in some mammalians' skeletal reminders of five fingers and five toes hidden beneath skin).
I thought perhaps it was due to the genetic limitations of the 10,000 or so human beings that survived the Sumatra super-vocanic cataclysm of 74,000 years ago; however, based on the article, it appears to have been ingrained in our DNA some 1.8M years ago.
Louis Leakey should have been looking in that layer of volcanic soil (where the footprints were found). :)
More on the recent development of blue-eyed people and the cataclysm (near bottom of page).
http://survive2012.com/news/labels/evolution.html
Another article describes the Sumatra super-volcano that reduced the Neandertal and Cro-Magnon populations to a few thousand individuals 74,000 years ago: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1202/1202blast.txt
The article points out that the Yellowstone Park super-volcano could cause another "leap" in human evolution, decimating Humanity's DNA pool to a few thousand "fit-and-savvy-survivors" once again.
Certainly doesn't injure any argument about a designer using a common design.
Thanks for the info.
Well, that's a puzzle! In addition to the fact that we see no new body plans since the Cambrian, the very fact that the number of body plans is finite (and small, whether 30 or 14) would seem to argue against the idea of evolution as a simple random walk. If Darwin's theory is true, then we should be seeing gadzillions of "failed body plans" in the fossil record. Where are they?
Or so it seems to me, FWIW. Thank you ever so much for writing, dearest sister in Christ!
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.