EVOLUTION: what about this

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rogerteder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It appears that St. Darwin did not directly lose his faith because of evolution.
Click to expand...
It’s always funny to realize some people think Darwin is regarded as a saint by science. Much of the error of creationism is caused by such absurd ideas about science.
But many of his peers did. And many people today do.
Click to expand...
That assertion is not only nonsense, it denies the fact that creationism is a very efficient atheist-maker.

**But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,”

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
**
home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm
 
ricmat said:
PS I found this quote interesting. It reminds me of some of the folks here.
Click to expand...
Agreed – that does sound very familiar.
Quote:
While Darwin was originally very modest about evolution—a theory to account for transitions from one life form to another—he became increasingly insistent that evolution was an entirely naturalistic system, having no room for miracles or divine intervention at any point. When Darwin’s co-discoverer of evolution, Alfred Russel Wallace, wrote him to say that evolution could not account for man’s moral and spiritual nature, Darwin accused him of jeopardizing the whole theory:
Click to expand...
They tried to cover-up the theological implications.
 
The_Barbarian said:
In fact, evolutionary theory depends on fish at some point evolving functional legs. These fish have since been found in the fossil record.
Click to expand...
I once found a rock and a cubic zirconia “diamond” in the same field. I believe that the cubic zirconia evolved from the rock.
The Barbarian:
Polar bears. Appeared after the last glaciation. Evolved from grizzly bears, with which they are still somewhat interfertile.
Click to expand...
Polar Bears are FULLY interfertile with Brown and Grizzly bears.

msnbc.msn.com/id/12738644/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly-polar_bear_hybrid

There is no reason to not believe that all bears are interfertile with all others.
 
"StAntanasia:
Bye bye antibiotics. Hello multi-drug resistance with a vengeance
40.png
PEPCIS:
What’s so funny about this is that antibiotics are the leading scientific cause of multi-drug resistance.
Click to expand...
Orogeny said:
Yep, that’s right. Evolution in action.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yep. MICROevolution. MICRO is not MACRO.
 
StAnastasia said:
So you don’t understand. OK – here’ how it works. You employ antibiotic A on a bacterial population. Let’s say 1% of it is resistant to that, so only 99% are killed off, and the 1% multiply to form a new population. Then you try antibiotic B, with the same result. Now you have a population of bacteria that have evolved resistance to both antibiotic A and antibiotic B. And so on for every drug in your arsenal. Evolution in action – got it?
Click to expand...
No, evolution in your MIND. That’s called “Natural Selection” which is the MECHANISM (supposedly) for evolution. It is NOT evolution.

Try again?
 
reggieM said:
I would say that his views on evolution and natural selection contributed heavily to his loss of faith.
Click to expand...
Evolution was compatible with his agnosticism – as it is with theism – but not causative of it.
 
PEPCIS said:
No, evolution in your MIND. That’s called “Natural Selection” which is the MECHANISM (supposedly) for evolution. It is NOT evolution.Try again?
Click to expand...
Well, yes, it is how evolution works. But if you sincerely believe your hunch holds water, why not write it up and submit it as a paper to the Journal of Evolutionary Biology? blackwellpublishing.com/jeb_enhanced/society.asp

If there’s truth in what you say, I’m sure the Society will be anxious to give you a hearing, as that is how science works. Of course, if you have doubts about the cogency of your theory, you may choose to keep it here on an obscure discussion board.
 
StAnastasia said:
Well, yes, it is how evolution works. But if you sincerely believe your hunch holds water, why not write it up and submit it as a paper to the Journal of Evolutionary Biology? blackwellpublishing.com/jeb_enhanced/society.asp

If there’s truth in what you say, I’m sure the Society will be anxious to give you a hearing, as that is how science works. Of course, if you have doubts about the cogency of your theory, you may choose to keep it here on an obscure discussion board.
Click to expand...
Are you certain?

…
Historically, there were few scientific breakthroughs that were not violently opposed, condemned and strongly resisted. Every scientist knows this, Thomas Kuhn has written a book about it that is considered a classic, and yet the pattern keeps repeating itself. Many mainstream scientists these days believe that science has essentially reached ‘the end of the road’, that everything that can be understood has been understood, and that therefore claims to genuinely revolutionary discoveries must necessarily be erroneous or fraudulent.

Establishment science has thus gotten into the habit of ignoring, burying or suppressing what has now become astonishing amounts of anomalous evidence. Some of this evidence challenges the very foundations of the accepted scientific worldview, and none of it is taught in universities or covered by textbooks. Mention any of it to a mainstream scientist, and odds are you will be dismissed as a crank, or worse, a crackpot. The conclusion is sobering: some of what passes for “scientific fact” these days is little more than a social construct. What is true and what is not is determined by the scientific prestige of the claimant, the predilections of journal editors and referees, and by economic interests. A scientist who challenges the status quo becomes a persona non grata - banned from publication in journals and speaking on conferences, defunded, marginalized. The victims of this phenomenon include world-class scientists such as Jacques Benveniste, Peter Duesberg, Halton Arp, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman.
 
PEPCIS said:
Who cares. They ain’t rocks. :rolleyes:

There is only one method for dating rocks, and you don’t do it by varves.
Click to expand...
Really? Did you learn that in your stratigraphy class or your sedimentology class? Or were you absent those days?

Peace

Tim
 
StAnastasia said:
Well, yes, it is how evolution works. But if you sincerely believe your hunch holds water, why not write it up and submit it as a paper to the Journal of Evolutionary Biology? blackwellpublishing.com/jeb_enhanced/society.asp

If there’s truth in what you say, I’m sure the Society will be anxious to give you a hearing, as that is how science works. Of course, if you have doubts about the cogency of your theory, you may choose to keep it here on an obscure discussion board.
Click to expand...
I grow some bacteria in a petri dish. I then expose the bacteria to a toxic substance. All die except a few who live and reproduce. Can you tell when the ‘evolution’ occurred?

I put a million people in a room and expose them to a toxin. All die within three days but a few survive and reproduce. Can you point out exactly when evolution occurred?

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
I grow some bacteria in a petri dish. I then expose the bacteria to a toxic substance. All die except a few who live and reproduce. Can you tell when the ‘evolution’ occurred?
I put a million people in a room and expose them to a toxin. All die within three days but a few survive and reproduce. Can you point out exactly when evolution occurred?
Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
The bacteria who survive convey to their offsrping a tolerance to that toxin. The offspring have evolved a tolerance to the toxin.
 
StAnastasia said:
The bacteria who survive convey to their offsrping a tolerance to that toxin. The offspring have evolved a tolerance to the toxin.
Click to expand...
The bacteria who survived already had a tolerance to the toxin. How do we know? Because they were able to survive.

Nothing evolved, the parents had the ability already. Nothing new was passed on to their offspring.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
The bacteria who survived already had a tolerance to the toxin. How do we know? Because they were able to survive.

Nothing evolved, the parents had the ability already. Nothing new was passed on to their offspring.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
You beat me to it Ed. I was going to say the same thing but you hit the submit button first.
 
edwest2 said:
The bacteria who survived already had a tolerance to the toxin. How do we know? Because they were able to survive. Nothing evolved, the parents had the ability already. Nothing new was passed on to their offspring.Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Ed, propose a paper on this to the AAAS. If your idea has merit they’ll schedule the panel, and we’ll all get closer to the truth. If your idea is nonsense, the reviewers will let you know why.
 
StAnastasia said:
Ed, propose a paper on this to the AAAS. If your idea has merit they’ll schedule the panel, and we’ll all get closer to the truth. If your idea is nonsense, the reviewers will let you know why.
Click to expand...
My idea is simple and straightforward. I think the AAAS doesn’t need to get involved. Anyone should be able to evaluate it.

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top