The Darwin Anniversary

CMI ^ | November 24, 2009 | Carl Wieland

[GodGunsGuts]

Today, November 24, it is exactly 150 years since Charles Darwin published his On the Origin of Species.

The world has been gearing up for this “second echelon” of celebrations for this international “Year of Darwin”, following on from the 200th anniversary of his birth this last February. Atheists and humanist groups in particular have seemed to be relishing the thought of giving further prominence to the ideas of their patron saint. Their adulation is heightened by their knowledge that...

[metmom]

Let’s hear it for rational discourse governed by consistent processes of inquiry based on observable phenomena and repeatable experiments. Ahh the free market place of theories where ideas stand or fall on their accumulated merits and facts not on the emotional attachment to unprovable beliefs.

The free market of ideas allowed the Constitution which says ....When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Looks like Christianity proved itself for rational discourse and accumulated merits in providing the basis for this document.

[demshateGod]

It’s not just a matter of trying to fit God in with the natural world. It’s allowing the Bible to mean what it says. God told us how he did it. He gave us a time line of creation which includes Adam and told us there’s a definite line from Adam to Christ. If we throw out Adam, what do we do with Christ? Why should we believe he existed? God said Christ was the second Adam. If Adam was a metaphor, then Christ is just as much. I’m not going to trust my eternity to a metaphor.

So what do we do with all the “proof” that God was lying to us? Funny thing is, the “science” isn’t as infallible as we were told by the government worker who taught it to us.

Creation itself bares witness that what God says happened, really did happen.

Oh Good, we’re now enlightened and have no reason to doubt the Bible. But wait! There are others who are being turned away from Christ by fables and sheilded from the truth through a tax funded, compulsory prohibition. Well, we tried to fight that but failed because Marxism is so ingrained in the public institutions that they’re lost.

Well, there are still free conduits of information available where the truth can be distributed and we must.

If we were to do what you say, we’d have to ignore or rewrite huge portion of scripture. Do you see how we’d then have a man-centered religion? Instead of God telling us what He said, it’d but up to man to be constantly redefining what He said based on constant enlightenment.

To answer your question more directly. God could have made the earth with age and he could have made tiny fossils for some reason. That wouldn’t change that the Bible clearly teaches the earth is no more than 10,000 years old and death didn’t exist until Adam, a real person, sinned.

It also wouldn’t mean we should trust in radiocarbon dating or geologic columns.

[xcamel]

If grimygophergonads had a brain, he/she/it would be focusing his/her/its energy on that tact...

[demshateGod]

How do you argue with these guys all the time? Not to mention they bring out the same tired remarks every time but their tactics are so annoying. I can’t even stand it. You have more patience than me that’s for sure.

So you admit so you admit, so what you’re saying is, so what you’re saying is...........

Ugh!

[demshateGod]

How do you argue with these guys all the time? Not to mention they bring out the same tired remarks every time but their tactics are so annoying. I can’t even stand it. You have more patience than me that’s for sure.

So you admit so you admit, so what you’re saying is, so what you’re saying is...........

“If it wasn’t for Darwin we wouldn’t have tang, Penicillin, calculus, microwaves, or Beethoven’s 7th symphony. You flatearthers”

Ugh!

[metmom]

Electric, This post was started by GGG. Why is it necessary for you to enter in? You obviously have no desire in you for anything besides trying to ridicule someone.

It's obvious. It's merely a new tactic by the evos.

It obviously eats at them that they can't control FR. They have no say in the placement of the threads and that just irks them beyond measure.

So, instead of just letting them go, they swarm the threads in mockery and derision in the attempt to either destroy any chance the thread has of discussing the shortcomings of the ToE, or to drive people away, or to provoke someone into saying something that will get creationists banned.

When was the last time you saw an evo join up on a thread that GGG posted that he did not ping them to, and actually discuss or refute the content of the article?

The first words off any evos keyboard are snarky, dismissive, ridicule.

They simply cannot tolerate the thought that someone thinks differently than they do and if they can't control the forum, like they do with the public schools, they will harass and mock people in an attempt to drive them off, or so destroy the thread that no one wants to join.

Interesting behavior from those who pride themselves on rationality and objectiveness.

For all their claims to objectiveness, they are singularly incapable of apparently even trying to see the debate from any other point of view or being willing to let others believe as they want.

[Oztrich Boy]

Science is hard. Go with what makes you feel good.

[metmom]

Science is hard. Go with what makes you feel good.

Oh, it's not that hard at all. There's nothing fancy or complicated about using the scientific method.

That's just a myth perpetrated for the purposes of slamming non-scientists as unintelligent or lazy, as you just did.

What's your degree in, BTW? What area of scientific study have you engaged in?

[count-your-change]

One of those silly and meaningless throw-aways. Water is wet, up is like down but opposite. science is hard, what does that mean?
What science? what part? Hard in what way? Total graffiti.

[metmom]

Then it gets into defining *science* and with the track record that evos have with definitions like *species* and *evolution*, pinning them down on that will be like nailing jello to a wall.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Then stick to the echo chamber and tell your buddy to stop perverting science to match his theology and stop posting this nonsense under a science keyword in the news category.

Stop pretending that GGG is on a Holy crusade. His self-appointed job is to peddle lies, nothing more.

...and your rant aside, my “science” is not only helping this country, it is also helping India...directly. Unless saving lives is a worthless endeavor that only us heathens care about .

[ElectricStrawberry]

Is that nonsense all you got?

[count-your-change]

Quite so. Remember those so-called “14 points” or whatever it was on the other thread? Evolution defined as variation, variation is proof of evolution. Ahemmm.

[Behemoth the Cat]

If we were to do what you say, we’d have to ignore or rewrite huge portion of scripture.

Well, if you don't reinterpret certain things in the Scripture, then you have to ignore or deny the observed reality.

For example, if you "allow the Bible to mean what it says" then the earth is flat, has edges, and the firmament (including the Sun) revolves around it. Unavoidably, because this is supported by numerous Biblical passages. It's not an academic splitting hair, presented by some atheist "evo", but a very real problem, which the Christianity (represented back then by the Catholic church) had to face several hundred years ago.

'Creation science' attempts to solve this dilemma by scientific revisionism. This approach may work with people lacking education, but at certain level you simply cannot deny that scientific findings are interconnected. Knowledge from one discipline is applied in another. All is backed by mathematics, and most of it is translated into technology. Despite gaps, things we know are consistent. Revolutionary changes proposed by 'creation science' would make these things suddenly stop matching each other. I am sorry, but when given a choice between reconciling one material evidence with another, and reconciling observed phenomena SEPARATELY with literalist interpretation of the Bible, I have to choose the former. Perhaps a preacher can make another choice, but a scientist can't, otherwise we would be dealing with a dream-like world resembling Alice in the Wonderland, not a reality, which we can understand and alter, according to our will (and per God's wish, by the way).

[Behemoth the Cat]

"What's your degree in, BTW? What area of scientific study have you engaged in?"

"Coming out"? Perhaps it's a good idea. So let's identify all the ACLU activists and Lutheran preachers here. :)

[Agamemnon]

I have stood on Darwin’s grave in Westminster Abbey. RIP pagan Darwin!

I too have had that distinct pleasure on many occasions as have each of my kids, most often doing so gazing in Newton's direction. I'll typically shuffle and scuff over Darwin's name several times; will grind in and pivot on my heel as well. A desecration fit for a scoundrel. I delight in the mockery I may heap personally upon this particular memorial.

The "climate-change" earth-worshipping frauds now being exposed are the same "religio-scientismist" mentalities that have likewise worshiped Darwin for years.

Today "climate-change" frauds have been hacked into and are exposed for what they are. Darwin's fraudsters both here on FR and in today's culture are cut from the same cloth as the "climate-change" pantheists and their fraudulent evo-religiosity will continue to be exposed on these threads.

Well done, GGG and Doctor Don!

FReegards!

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

at certain level you simply cannot deny that scientific findings are interconnected. Knowledge from one discipline is applied in another.

Nice post. That's one of the things I've long noticed about "creation science"--there are alternative explanations for everything, but they don't fit together. They're all one-off kluges. The accepted explanations, on the other hand all fit together and make sense in context of each other. It's a much stronger package.

[Ira_Louvin]

• Variations.

1. Variations exist with in all populations.

2. Some of that variation is heritable

3. Base pair sequences are encoded in a set of self-replicating molecules that form templates for making proteins.

4. Combinations of genes that did not previously exist may arise via “Crossing over” During meiosis, which alters the sequence of base pair on a chromosome.

5. Copying errors (mutations) can also arise; because the self-replication process is of imperfect (although high) fidelity; these mutations also increase the range of combinations of alleles in a gene pool.

6. These recombination’s and errors produce a tendency for successfully increasing genetic divergence radiating outward from the initial state of the population.

Selection

7. Some of the heritable variations have an influence on the number of offspring able to reproduce in turn, including traits that affect mating opportunities or survival prospects for either individuals or close relatives.

8. Characteristics which tend to increase the number of an organisms offspring that are able to reproduce in turn; tend to become more common over generations and diffuse through a population; those that tend to decrease such prospects tend to become rarer.

9. Unrepresentative samplings which alters the relative frequency of the various alleles can occur in populations for reasons other than survival / reproduction advantages, a process known as” genetic drift”.

10. Migration of individuals from one population to another can lead to changes in the relative frequencies of alleles in the “recipient” population.

Speciation

11. Populations of a single species that live in different environments are exposed to different conditions that can “favor” different traits. These environmental differences can cause two populations to accumulate divergent suites of characteristics.

12. A new species develops (often initiated by temporary environmental factors such as a period of geographic isolation) when sub-population acquires characteristics, which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation from the alternative population, limiting the diffusion of variations thereafter.

Sufficiency

13. The combination of these effects tends to increase diversity of initially similar life forms over time.

14. Over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain both the diversity within and similarities between the forms of life observed on earth, including both living forms directly observed in the present, and extinct form indirectly observed from the fossil record.

That’s what Evolution IS! If you have a problem with Evolution you have a problem with one or more of these fourteen points. Which one is it? Provide any evidence of any of the points that are incorrect.

While the origins of life are a question of interest to evolutionary biologist and frequently studied in conjunction with researchers from other fields such as geochemistry and organic chemistry, the core of evolutionary theory itself does not rest on a foundation that requires any knowledge about the origins of life on earth. It is primarily concerned with the change and diversification of life after the origins of the earliest living things – although there is not yet a consensus as to how to distinguish “living” from “non-living”

Evolution does NOT indicate that all variations are explained this way; that there are no other mechanisms by which variations may arise, be passed, or become prevalent; or that there is no other way life diversifies. Any and all of these may be valid topics for conjecture…but without evidence, they aren’t science.

Other peoples opinions presented in the form of quotes are not evidence against the theory of evolution. They are merely opinions, and all people have opinions, which turn out to be false. So lets stick to the facts.

[Boxen]

Good for you. It’s a real pity that you will bother no one with your childish desecration. If anything, your orgasmic little dance proves that your disagreement with evolution is wholly emotional and ungrounded in fact.

[Agamemnon]

Good for you. It’s a real pity that you will bother no one with your childish desecration. If anything, your orgasmic little dance proves that your disagreement with evolution is wholly emotional and ungrounded in fact.

Stomped all over your little god there did I? It bothered you enough to post your little pout, so now you've afforded me the added pleasure of being able to sit back and laugh at you as much as I'll continue to grind Darwin's name into the floor and mock him. Looks like I get a real "two fer" out of this one.

One more victory lap at the expense of the ego of yet another seething Darwinist. Mission accomplished!