|
| |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | God's creation vs. Science
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 361147
9/22/2008 3:29 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Darwin himslef, when speaking of the evolution of the eye said, "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."-The Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin, 1902 edition Quoting: Anonymous Coward 506542
Fucking idiot quotemine quoter. Read the fucking book before quoting a sentence.
This is the correct quote in the proper context;
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.
Now tell me do you really think Darwin agrees with the quote pulled out of context like you did? |
| Rxmundi
User ID: 206565
9/22/2008 3:30 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
According to the book of Genesis, God created vegetation (the 3rd day) before he created the sun or the moon (4th day). Obviously, vegetation cannot grow without sun light.
So what gives?
Also, according to Genesis, birds were created before land creatures. Birds created on the 5th day, land creatures created on the 6th day.
This model goes entirely against evolution.
According to the evolutionary model, birds evolved from land dwelling creatures.
So what can explain God's unusual time line of creation that goes against science?
Genesis:
[ link to www.biblegateway.com]
Simple!
The bible is fantasy written by primatives trying to understand nature.
There are no gods.
Primitives?
Now tell me do you understand nature? Please, don't make yourself look stupid and say yes. Trying to understand nature is something we only want to do since modern science.
In the past there was no difference between religion and science. This polarity that we created is only very recent. In the past we lived in a more harmonic relation with nature. We knew when to plant seeds, when to expect rain, where the sun would rise, where the moon would be. Don't think one moment that we where primitive back then. We can not understand Stonehenge, the great pyramids, Mayan civilization. we try, but we fail in so many things because science can't grasp this concept. And labels them primitive in their ignorance.
As for there is no Gods, it doesn't matter. For believers and atheist the world keeps on spinning.
-Peeling tape from a roll of Scotch releases tiny bursts of X-rays that are powerful enough to take images of bones in fingers and hands. - |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 506542
9/22/2008 3:31 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Steven Stanbridge in The New Evolutionary Theory says, "The known fosil record is not, and never has been, in accord with slow evolution." He went on to say that there has been a "general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another." |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 506542
9/22/2008 3:32 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
I find it funny how so many atheists and proponents of evolution look down upon those who believe in a god, as though something to be pitied-they are undeveloped mentally, sitting in darkness.They laugh at faith, saying it is rediculous to believe in something that isnt real or tangible. Well, do not you atheists and believers in evolution do the same? You believe in something that is simply not true. There is no evidence for evolution, and the scientists know it. You have faith in a broken theory that is not tangible, and never will be. You have made Darwin your supreme god in a pantheon of lesser demi gods of scientists who push this theory forward. You bow down before the Theory of Evolution and burn the incense. It is the same as bowing down before a lifeless idol of wood to worship it-and just as rediculous |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508451
9/22/2008 3:33 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
If it is not an Intelligent Consciousness that encourages the eye to adopt the WILL and purpose to IMPROVE on itself....
then what is it?
What would make inanimate purposeless accidentally formed organs WANT TO IMPROVE THEIR MACHINATIONS TO BECOME MORE EFFICIENT? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508267
9/22/2008 3:33 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Who/what created God?
For your better understanding, I could explain that God was birthed from some vast benevolent wellspring of intelligence......a cosmic spiritual primordial soup, as it were.
but why get ahead of yourself?
connect the dots that are closer to the source. :) Quoting: Anonymous Coward 508451
Just as I thought. Bringing a God into the equation simply moves the ultimate question back a step. You have gained nothing. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 361147
9/22/2008 3:39 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
I didn't say evolution is a myth, now did I?
My point was of the conclusion of there being an Intelligent Designer who wrote the DNA code for the evolutionary machinations of every living thing under the biosphere.
You might want to take a deeper look at the big picture, because the machinations of the 'survival of the species' relies not only on the biochemistry of each species intricate fail-safe biological systems.....
but is also apparent in the food chain, not to mention the beneficial symbiotic relationships between species....
as well as the perfect mix of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the balance of oceanic and fresh waters.
there is an intricately created Grand Symphony taking place in nature that cannot be explained away by MERE CHANCE....or 'the Luck of the Draw'....as you atheists ignorantly believe. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 508451
There is no evidence that DNA just appeared out of thin air by magic. There is even no evidence that it is remotely possible.
Science on the other hand proposes abiogenesis (formation of early replicating carbon based molecules followed by proto cells and so on). Which has no evidence for it but it does have evidence for it to be remotely possible.
Also chaos ordered by a framework can form order, the frame work in evolution is essentially survival of the fittest. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508267
9/22/2008 3:41 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Steven Stanbridge in The New Evolutionary Theory says, "The known fosil record is not, and never has been, in accord with slow evolution." He went on to say that there has been a "general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another." Quoting: Anonymous Coward 506542
What about the more than a dozen types of feathered dinosaurs...the Archaeopteryx, Deinonychus, etc?
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
What about the vestigal leg bones in whales? On and on...there are lots of trasitional forms that you seem to want to ignore.
[link to en.wikipedia.org] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508267
9/22/2008 3:43 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
If it is not an Intelligent Consciousness that encourages the eye to adopt the WILL and purpose to IMPROVE on itself....
then what is it?
What would make inanimate purposeless accidentally formed organs WANT TO IMPROVE THEIR MACHINATIONS TO BECOME MORE EFFICIENT? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 508451
One word...survival. The one with the keener eye lives longer than the one with the less keen eye. Therefore, more offspring and the trait is passed on. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 506542
9/22/2008 4:10 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution.
The average single human gene is a piece of DNA comprised of 100,000 pairs of amino acids all of which are perfectly sequenced. It is impossible for a new gene to appear by chance or by "natural selection."
As you read this, many of you are asking "What about mutations? Can't they create a new gene". The answer is "Absolutely not." Mutations can change only existing genes. But mutations have nothing whatever to do with creating an entirely new gene. We invite you to google or yahoo terms such as "add a gene" and you will be able to verify that there has never been a case where a species added a gene. But apes would have had to add many genes (and be created anew) in order to become human. |
| Eye See
User ID: 436951
9/22/2008 4:16 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
"At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt"....... I.L. Cohen, Researcher and Mathematician; Member NY Academy of Sciences; Officer of the Archaeological Inst. of America; "Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities"; New Research Publications, 1984, p. 4
[link to www.s8int.com]
And Language cannot evolve, all languages started intact and whole.
Just like the Scriptures told us.
Peace |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 506542
9/22/2008 4:17 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Darwin introduced his Theory of Evolution in 1859; it became generally accepted worldwide by scientists during the 1930s. That is a full lifetime ago. Since then literally millions of scientists worldwide have studied it and accepted it. Yet scientists have never successfully quantified it, nor produced a working mathematical formula based on the Theory of Evolution.
Darwinists have tried very hard to produce an Evolution Formula. Every scientist knows that whoever succeeds in creating an Evolution Formula would win a Nobel Prize. That is why millions of pro-evolution scientists have each devoted years trying to quantify Darwinism. But no scientist ever succeeded. It was not the fault of the scientists. It was the fault of the theory. The theory is false. You cannot create a working formula for an invalid theory.
Let us quantify this giant failure of Evolution Theory:
If there have been only 5 million scientists in the world in each of the years 1930 to 2007, and only 1 percent of them devoted 5% of their careers to the effort of trying to quantify Evolution Theory in an attempt to win a Nobel Prize, then together, scientists have devoted 7.7 million man-years trying to quantify Darwinism and FAILED.
When we have a formula, we can test it, make predictions with it, and check to see if the theory behind the formula really works. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508451
9/22/2008 4:19 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Who/what created God?
For your better understanding, I could explain that God was birthed from some vast benevolent wellspring of intelligence......a cosmic spiritual primordial soup, as it were.
but why get ahead of yourself?
connect the dots that are closer to the source. :)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Just as I thought. Bringing a God into the equation simply moves the ultimate question back a step. You have gained nothing. Quoting: Anonymous Coward
and you gained less.
good luck with that. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508451
9/22/2008 4:23 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
I didn't say evolution is a myth, now did I?
My point was of the conclusion of there being an Intelligent Designer who wrote the DNA code for the evolutionary machinations of every living thing under the biosphere.
You might want to take a deeper look at the big picture, because the machinations of the 'survival of the species' relies not only on the biochemistry of each species intricate fail-safe biological systems.....
but is also apparent in the food chain, not to mention the beneficial symbiotic relationships between species....
as well as the perfect mix of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the balance of oceanic and fresh waters.
there is an intricately created Grand Symphony taking place in nature that cannot be explained away by MERE CHANCE....or 'the Luck of the Draw'....as you atheists ignorantly believe.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is no evidence that DNA just appeared out of thin air by magic. There is even no evidence that it is remotely possible.
Science on the other hand proposes abiogenesis (formation of early replicating carbon based molecules followed by proto cells and so on). Which has no evidence for it but it does have evidence for it to be remotely possible.
Also chaos ordered by a framework can form order, the frame work in evolution is essentially survival of the fittest. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 361147
What makes, what you might define as a consciousless system, WANT to SURVIVE?
Where does that conscious effort or WILL come from? |
| fallemonk
User ID: 403381
9/22/2008 6:05 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Steven Stanbridge in The New Evolutionary Theory says, "The known fosil record is not, and never has been, in accord with slow evolution." He went on to say that there has been a "general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another."
What about the more than a dozen types of feathered dinosaurs...the Archaeopteryx, Deinonychus, etc?
[ link to en.wikipedia.org]
What about the vestigal leg bones in whales? On and on...there are lots of trasitional forms that you seem to want to ignore.
[ link to en.wikipedia.org]
so?it is still a dinosaur and it is still a whale. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 403381
9/22/2008 6:20 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
lets talk about Saturn and her age.Since solid ammonia has much higher vapor pressure than ice, for instance,how could ammonia have survived for the supposed life of the planet of some 4.5 billion years.Saturn is much younger than claimed.
Here's your answer.
[ link to www.tim-thompson.com]
briefly read through it,will do it more deeply when am not so tired.though, it does seems with my first read that he is not proving the earth is 4.5billion years at all. He is also quite vague in saying things like "astronomers "im thinking which ones? or "geologists " from where?congo?.i will go through it again when I have more time. thanks. |
| DrPostman  
Forum Moderator
User ID: 51197
9/22/2008 6:29 PM
 | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Darwin himslef, when speaking of the evolution of the eye said, "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."-The Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin, 1902 edition Quoting: Anonymous Coward 506542
Why don't you provide the whole accurate quote, and do so
in context.
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."
That paragraph goes on to state:
"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)"
[link to www.carm.org]
Not very honest of you.
"Sooner or later all the peoples of the world will have to discover a way to
live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into
a creative psalm of brotherhood. If this is to be achieved, man must evolve
for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation.
The foundation of such a method is love."
--Reverend Martin Luther King
Can't PM? Feel free to email me at
DrPostman(at)gmail.com
Want to know if a site is down, or if
the problem is at your end? Go to:
[link to downforeveryoneorjustme.com] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508028
9/22/2008 6:29 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
I've been coming to GLP for a long time now, and i must say for the most part u guys seem pretty smart, but this is the first time ive been left feeling...disgusted from BOTH sides of this "argument". Look its simple man made religion, not god...we all know that man wrote the bible, the only thing "god" ... "wrote" was the Koran which was recently proven not to be so true as the oldest Koran found was almost unreadable due to the undeveloped written language. anyways. to say that someone who doesnt believe in a god is... mentally undeveloped as someone just stated, is FUCKING STUPID! ull find that the smartest ppl on this planet r thoses who live by science. and to state that evolution has recently for the most part been "disprove".... Well then for someone to say that, you must REALLY be hoping for a god out and that is really REALLY kinda sad to be so fearful and hopeful of something you r clearly unaware of, NO ONE knows if there is a god, NO ONE was there to see evolution take place over tens of millions of years.
We are ALL brothers of the Cosmos....lets act like it.  |
| dr. phuwordz
User ID: 508594
9/22/2008 6:30 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
interesting.
You can measure a man by the size of that which he allows to bother him. |
| DrPostman
Forum Moderator
User ID: 51197
9/22/2008 6:31 PM
| | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
"Darwins theory has always been closley linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is strictly not true."-The Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History. The Bulletin went on to say that Darwin "was embarrased by the fossil record because it didnt look the way he predicted it would, the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." It goes on to say that after more than a century of collecting fossils, "we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transistion than we had in Darwins time Quoting: Anonymous Coward 506542
More selective quoting. Chew on this:
"Yes, Raup did say this (in "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Jan. 1979, Vol. 50 No. 1 p. 22-29). Here is the quote in the immediate context (the quoted portions in boldface):
Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. (p. 25, emphasis mine)
Note that while Raup says that some of the examples have been "discarded" he also says that others have only been "modified". For example the classic horse series Raup mentions is one of those that has been modified, but it is far from discarded. Also note that Raup clearly states that the pattern of the fossil record is one of change in living things over geologic time, something that young earth creationists deny.
And yes it has been taken out of context. The paper is about Darwin's mechanism of natural selection and whether this mechanism is reflected in pattern of the fossil record, not whether there is a lack of evidence for common descent. From the beginning of the article:
Part of our conventional wisdom about evolution is that the fossil record of past life is an important cornerstone of evolutionary theory. In some ways, this is true -- but the situation is much more complicated. I will explore here a few of the complex interrelationships between fossils and darwinian theory. . . Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence form fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. (p. 22)
The transitions Raup seems to be talking about in the quote creationists use are mostly at the level of species or genera (like between a horse and a zebra or between a fox and a wolf), not intermediates between higher classifications like between classes, orders, or families (between reptiles and mammals etc.), which are the ones creationists most object to. However it is these "missing" species level transitions that creationists (in ignorance?) often quote paleontologists talking about. This seems to be the case here as well:
There were several problems, but the principle one was that the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another. . . (p. 23, emphasis mine)
Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge are favorite targets for this creationist tactic because their hypothesis of punctuated equilibria is intended to explain why from a biological point of view we should expect species level transitions to be rare in the fossil record. Thus in their writings they frequently state the problem(s) they are attempting to solve. Creationists quote them stating the problems but not the solutions they propose. This seems to be the nature of the quote they have taken from Raup. The beginning of the very next paragraph after the one they quote tends to confirm this:
Now let me take a step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works. (p. 25)
He then moves on to the fossil record:
Now with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see change. If any of us were to be put down in the Cretaceous landscape we would immediately recognize the difference. Some of the plants and animals would be familiar but most would have changed and some of the types would be totally different from those living today. . . This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change too place, and that is really the question. If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent. (p. 26)
He then goes on to discuss natural selection versus other possible explanatory mechanisms and how they might relate to the fossil record. He also discusses the effects of historical contingency as it relates to extinction pointing out that sometimes species may become extinct due more to "bad luck" than bad genes -- this by the way is the basis for Raup's 1991 book Extinction - Bad Genes or Bad Luck?). Raup concludes this article stating:
The ideas I have discussed here are rather new and have not been completely tested. No matter how they come out, however, they are having a ventilating effect on thinking in evolution and the conventional dogma is being challenged. If the ideas turn out to be valid, it will mean that Darwin was correct in what he said but that he was explaining only a part of the total evolutionary picture. The part he missed was the simple element of chance! (p. 29)
Not particularly damning. Perhaps the more interesting question is where do creationists get the idea that lists of such (out of context) quotations are a valid form of scientific argument?
For Raup's views on creationist arguments I suggest you look up one or both of the following:
bullet
"Geology and Creationism", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Mar. 1983, Vol. 54 No. 3 pp. 16-25)
bullet
"The Geological and Paleontological Arguments of Creationism" in Scientists Confront Creationism (1983), Laurie R. Godfrey (Editor), pp. 147-162"
[link to home.att.net]
"Sooner or later all the peoples of the world will have to discover a way to
live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into
a creative psalm of brotherhood. If this is to be achieved, man must evolve
for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation.
The foundation of such a method is love."
--Reverend Martin Luther King
Can't PM? Feel free to email me at
DrPostman(at)gmail.com
Want to know if a site is down, or if
the problem is at your end? Go to:
[link to downforeveryoneorjustme.com] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508433
9/22/2008 6:34 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Was the garden of Eden even on planet Earth?
Some say it existed in Mesopotamia.
Others say Africa.
The mormons believe it was in the state of Missouri.
Was garden of Eden on planet Mars?
[link to www.ufodigest.com] |
| Just a Reminder
User ID: 508451
9/22/2008 6:37 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
The term CREATION encompasses a hell of a lot more, conceptually speaking, than just the fossil record. |
| DrPostman
Forum Moderator
User ID: 51197
9/22/2008 6:38 PM
| | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Steven Stanbridge in The New Evolutionary Theory says, "The known fosil record is not, and never has been, in accord with slow evolution." He went on to say that there has been a "general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another." Quoting: Anonymous Coward 506542
And who is HE supposed to be? I can find nothing on the net
about him. And if that's a book he's published it doesn't seem to be listed anywhere. I find a reference on one
creationist website with that quote. Just one, and no
references.
"Sooner or later all the peoples of the world will have to discover a way to
live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into
a creative psalm of brotherhood. If this is to be achieved, man must evolve
for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation.
The foundation of such a method is love."
--Reverend Martin Luther King
Can't PM? Feel free to email me at
DrPostman(at)gmail.com
Want to know if a site is down, or if
the problem is at your end? Go to:
[link to downforeveryoneorjustme.com] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508451
9/22/2008 6:43 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
*cough* Cambrian Explosion *cough* |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 506542
9/22/2008 6:44 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Darwin himslef, when speaking of the evolution of the eye said, "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."-The Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin, 1902 edition
Fucking idiot quotemine quoter. Read the fucking book before quoting a sentence.
This is the correct quote in the proper context;
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.
Now tell me do you really think Darwin agrees with the quote pulled out of context like you did? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 361147
The point is darwin is not sure about anything he says?
Its well documented he had a hard time believing his own THEORY
QOUTE.
I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.
He is asking me to believe ,fuck, does not sound like a scientist to me .Show me some fucking skeletons or fossils which are midway through ther transition from one form to another.
Its all full of fucking holes, and one day will be looked back as being as fucking dumb as the flat earth theory. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 506542
9/22/2008 6:46 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Darwin himslef, when speaking of the evolution of the eye said, "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."-The Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin, 1902 edition
Fucking idiot quotemine quoter. Read the fucking book before quoting a sentence.
This is the correct quote in the proper context;
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.
Now tell me do you really think Darwin agrees with the quote pulled out of context like you did? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 361147
Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution.
The average single human gene is a piece of DNA comprised of 100,000 pairs of amino acids all of which are perfectly sequenced. It is impossible for a new gene to appear by chance or by "natural selection."
As you read this, many of you are asking "What about mutations? Can't they create a new gene". The answer is "Absolutely not." Mutations can change only existing genes. But mutations have nothing whatever to do with creating an entirely new gene. We invite you to google or yahoo terms such as "add a gene" and you will be able to verify that there has never been a case where a species added a gene. But apes would have had to add many genes (and be created anew) in order to become human.
BY the way i will quote all i fucking like asshole  |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508451
9/22/2008 6:49 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
"will look back on this as being as fucking dumb as the flat earth theory."
it is....they're the new 'flat earthers'... because most atheists refuse to believe what they cannot SEE with those extraordinarily designed eyes....and/or has yet to be proven to them. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 506542
9/22/2008 6:53 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Steven Stanbridge in The New Evolutionary Theory says, "The known fosil record is not, and never has been, in accord with slow evolution." He went on to say that there has been a "general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another."
And who is HE supposed to be? I can find nothing on the net
about him. And if that's a book he's published it doesn't seem to be listed anywhere. I find a reference on one
creationist website with that quote. Just one, and no
references. Quoting: DrPostman
Does not matter who he is who the fuck is DARWIN, its what he is saying what counts.
Show some evidence of gradual transitions from one major group to another. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 506542
9/22/2008 7:10 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Darwin cannot explain how the world could go from bacteria that have 'babies' that are totally fit, to humans who have babies that are totally helpless.
Bacteria have "babies" that are replicas of the "parents" and 100 percent as viable as the "parents". Fish and reptiles have babies that are miniature replicas of the parents and are self-reliant but are less viable because of their smaller size and slower speed. Most mammals and birds have totally helpless babies that have zero percent viability and need to be nursed. Babies that need to be nursed are not exactly good examples of "survival of the fittest".
How does a Darwinist explain how, after 4 billion years of evolution, we end up with helpless babies'? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 506542
9/22/2008 7:20 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Darwin was a bit confused?
In his letter to G. Bentham on may 22, 1863, ‘Darwin writes : In fact, the belief in natural selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations--when we descend to details, we cannot prove that one species has changed (in other words, we cannot prove that even a single species has changed): nor can we prove that that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the ground work of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. Again, he wrote to J.D.Hooker on july 12, 1870: "My theology is a simple muddle; I cannot look at the universe as the result of blind chance, yet I can see no evidence of beneficient design, or of design of any kind, in the details." |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | |
|
