Posted on 11/07/2009 1:57:39 AM PST by DouglasKC
That’s not enough. From a YEC perspective, Darwin has committed heresy, and must be characterized as an apostate for it.
That starts out bad and gets worse.
1. The "warm little pond" theory
1. The evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life.
“It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421
2.The supposed simplicity of the cell
2. Cells are complex now, that doesn't meand the first cells had to be complex. There's this theory you may have heard of called "evolution".
3.His ideas about the information inside the cell
3.
Make up a claim, attribute it to Darwin, prove claim wrong. All in a days work for a lying creationist
4. His expectation of intermediate fossils
4. More blatant lies. Our understanding of the fossil record is very good - not perfect, but considering how rare it is for an animal to become a fossil and how fragile they are, we're lucky to have as many good ones as we do.
5. His failure to see the limits of variation of species
5.Yet more blatant lies - species getting differentiated has been observed both in the fossil record and in the lab. As an example, sheep are a separate species (can no longer be interbred) with a mouflon, which they were descended from.
6. His discounting of the Cambrian explosion
6."there is still no evolutionary mechanism that can satisfactorily explain the sudden appearance of so many completely different life-forms" - Sure, if you discount punctuated equilibrium, which explains exactly that. Also, expecting Darwin to have an answer for something which wasn't really understood until after his death is dishonest
7. His theory of homology
7.I'm just gonna let this failure of logic stand on its own: "Darwin says similarities between animals is evidence for evolution, but I think it was because God was lazy".
8. His theory of human beings evolving from apes
8.Again, just stating a part of the theory of evolution and then saying "I disagree with that" is not an argument, unless you can show why you think it was wrong. Also, both apes and humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor, humans didn't evolve from modern apes.
9.His theory of the tree of life
9.Speciation again. It's as wrong as it was in #5. What, you couldn't think up ten lies, so you just used one of them twice? that's pretty pathetic.
10. His rejection of biblical creation by God
10.Again; "I disagree with Darwin, therefore he was wrong. No, I don't need any evidence to support my views."
A weak list even by the lax standards of creationism. Not that I was really expecting something rational or intellectually honest. There's this undercurrent of "If I can prove Darwin was wrong about something, I've demolished evolution!" running through the whole list, which just increases the amount of fail. Why would it matter even if he was wrong? how would that disprove 150 years of scientific discovery that back up evolution?
Same song, second verse. Go read some of the original arguments against heliocentrism.
I agree. Someday soon the weight of scientific evidence bolstering creation will be such that there will be no denying its source. When that happens scientific understanding and knowledge will make what we currently know look like the dark ages.
When the end is justifying the means, the means can get pretty ugly.
The claim was and remains that we are 98-99% the same in GENETIC DNA. A finding of 94-96% the same over the entire genome was an expected result due to the idea that neutral mutations are more likely in non gene or regulatory DNA sequences.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html
“Eichler and his colleagues found that the human and chimp sequences differ by only 1.2 percent in terms of single-nucleotide changes to the genetic code”
“Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species (in DNA).”
For those of you in Rio Linda I repeat....
98.8% same in genetic DNA
96% the same over the entire genome.
Too bad too much of this discussion is binary. Too often those who don't accept the abracadabra event of creation are labeled heretics. That includes those of us, including Charles Darwin, who fully accept that God created all life and used the process of evolution to do it.
The name of the article is "10 Ways Darwin Got It Wrong". Although closely related to the theory of evolution it's not necessarily focused on that.
Darwin speculated:
" It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."
His speculation was certainly wrong and since Darwin didn't mind offering his opinion it's completely fair to show where he was mistaken.
Good summary.
[[I couldn’t RECOMMEND Vishnu and/or Vishnuism... But if all you require is something to replace evoloserism with, Vishnu will do. In fact almost anything would be an improvement; you could not do worse than a brain-dead ideological doctrine which stands everything we know about modern mathematics and probability theory on its head by demanding an infinite series of zero-probability events and violations of probabilistic laws. The great pumpkin and pumpkinism would do for that matter.]]
Well said- but sadly most evos will simply ignore the fact that evolution requires infinite zero-probability events to occure, (Despite evidence for even one simplistic zero probability biological event occuring i nthe real world) and will insist that because water freezes into geometric patterns, that ‘anything is possible’, and nature ‘could have’ violated the second law trillions of times, and will continue insisting that hitting hte lottery is on equal footing the zero probability involved in biological events, and will keep insisting falsely that ‘because a large group of monkeys ‘could produce works of shakespear’ (Which is false- an earth fully populated with monkeys, given infinate paper ink and ribbon for hteir typewriters, could not produce even a single 15 word sentance with all the proper spaces and punctuations inplace even given hundreds of billions of years in which they were constantly typing- but the myth that they ‘could duplicate the works of shakespear’ still persists to this day despite the actual facts)
One question was whether the universe had purpose. I chose a few words from the answers given as typical:
“I regard the existence of this extraordinary universe as having a wonderful, awesome grandeur. It hangs there in all its glory, wholly and completely useless. To project onto it our human-inspired notion of purpose would, to my mind, sully and diminish it.
Peter William Atkins is a Fellow and professor of chemistry at Lincoln College, Oxford.
Another:
“So in the absence of human hubris, and after we filter out the delusional assessments it promotes within us, the universe looks more and more random. Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as other events that would just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible, to assert. So while I cannot claim to know for sure whether or not the universe has a purpose, the case against it is strong, and visible to anyone who sees the universe as it is rather than as they wish it to be.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist and the Director of New York City's Hayden Planetarium.
You'll recognize his smiling face on cable t.v. science programs. He once said he didn't care about definitions of life, he wanted to see something crawl out a beaker.
But perhaps these are just atheists or nearly so who have no appreciation of religion. Could be, but note the position held by the next writer:
“But just what are our minds anticipating? What are they reaching for? If, along with me, you are asking this question, you are already closing in on the answer. Your mind is engaged at his very moment in nothing less than the search for truth. And simply by reaching toward truth both you and your mind's natural root system–the universe–are ennobled. As they are being taken captive by the most undeniable of values, truth itself, they are already participating in its empowering though always elusive presence. It is because this transcendent value has already taken hold of you, and in you the whole universe, that you can have faith in your critical intelligence and also trust that the universe has a purpose.
Purpose, after all, means quite simply the bringing about of something undeniably and permanently good. Is that what is going on in the cosmos?
As long as you are drawn toward truth, so also is the natural world that gave birth to your mind. The two, after all, are inseparable. As long as the search for truth persists, not only can you trust your mind, you can also trust the universe that has germinated such an exquisite means of opening itself to what is timelessly worth treasuring.
John F. Haught is Senior Fellow, Science & Religion, at the Woodstock Theological Center, Georgetown University.”
So far the answers to question of purpose of the universe have been “No”, “Maybe” and “Yes”, but even the ‘yes’ is ‘new age’ “You (or at least your mind) are a child of the universe’ warmed over nonsense.
Darwinism's Dismal Doctrine: The universe is useless and without purpose and by extension, so are humans.
What's really ironic about the whole thing is the use of statistics by scientists to demonstrate everything else they want to verify.
When statistics can be used to verify things, it's used. When it goes to demonstrate that their little belief system will fall down around their ears, statistics are meaningless.
Rather hypocritical the use of mathematics when it comes to supporting pet theories.
In fact mouflon as a species are disappearing due to INTERBREEDING WITH SHEEP.
Mouflon ARE sheep.
So tell us again about, “”5.Yet more blatant lies” !!!!!!
So, why are you limiting God as to how He could do creation? What's wrong with Him simply speaking it into existence in a moment's time?
Why force it, and Him, into the time frame you wish and demand that it is right?
Why do evos insist in portraying God doing something instantly as being equivalent as magic and God being a magician besides merely to discredit that belief in instantaneous creation?
And how do you know that He DIDN'T do it instantaneously? Did He tell you so?
Why are evos so quick to condemn creationists for insisting on a shorter time frame for creation and allegedly condemning others for not accepting it and yet turn around demand that creationists accept evos time frame and condemn non-evos for not accepting it?
Why the double standard?
Darwin’s work was updated ten years ago by Steve Jones in the book “Darwin’s Ghost, the Origin of Species Updated.”
One review reads ... “The echoes of the master go elegantly beyond the mere re-use of chapter and section headings .. Bristles with splendidly informative illustrations and crisply executed demonstrations, liberally spiced with anecdote and curiosity. [it] will be rightly hailed.”
As was Darwin’s “Origin,” Jones’ book is a must read.
Wrong again, as CD said in his autobiography:
“Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.”
Nothing made by an intelligent being, everything the result of fixed laws.
The final paragraph of the The Origin of Species" includes:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." [Emphasis added by me.]
... I went to Jone's "Darwin's Ghost to find his final paragraph. It reads ...
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
I now think that Jones' work is an elegant masterpiece.
I am limiting His work no more than you. For me to entertain one possible process than for you to entertain a different one. You cannot say "God couldn't" and can with no more certainty certainty that "God didn't".
Who do you think Darwin credited with establishing those "fixed laws"? By acknowledging fixed laws, as opposed to random chance and the serendipity of chaos, Darwin is confessing a higher intelligence.
Nope, he explains his reasons for changing his mind about God’s existence, from believer to non. No creator, no intelligence, just like the blowing wind, going in whatever direction it may.
He’s confessing his reasons for NOT believing in a higher intelligence.
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.