Debate still rages over Darwin

Debate still rages over Darwin

www.dailynews.com

As scientists and organizations around the world prepare to mark Charles Darwin's 200th birthday on Feb. 12, his theory of natural selection presented in "On the Origin of Species" still arouses a tempest of controversy - mostly centered on the question of whether life is the result of chance and natural processes or divine design.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
features.csmonitor.com
www.loe.org
www.voanews.com

I HAVE NO COMMENT I JUST HAVE PLENTY OF QUESTION ABOUT ALL LIFE HERE IN THIS WORLD.Anticipating a year-long dust up occasioned by the 150th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, consider this. The author of The Origin of Species wrote “I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection.” The scientific conclusions of Darwin regarding our ancestry doesn't satisfy the spiritual teachings of many.

www.dailynews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

In order to prove there is no god or there is a god you would have to be omniscient omnipotent and omnipresent. and if you where all of those then you in theory would be GOD. so until then I'm on the fence where any logical person should be. and I'm glade there is debating going on because this is a subject that should have all party's brought to the table with out childish name calling.

HAHAHAHA that the second time ive seen this line in BS

"These atheist fundamentalists have a common interest in forcing people to choose between evolution and Christianity,"

strange they skip over the last 150 years of religeon saying its evolution or god you cant have both

athiests are saying evolution shows there isnt a NEED for a god not that it shows there is no God, well at least the ones i talk to and the fantastic four

i do feel sorry for the theistic evolutionists bieng lumped in with the creationists though

and really did appreaciate Ken Ham at the end saying evolution doesnt happen then reasonably accuratley outlining evolution as what he believes, maybe he should get a few lessons on taxonomy so he realises birds are STILL dinosaurs which are STILL lizards, and evolution say kinds should give birth to thier kinds with small variances which i why a birds avarian while also bieng dinosauria and reptilian all at the same time, i guess biblical shaving doesnt help educate you in the concept of nested heirachy

If God made the World, then evolution must have been God's plan all along. I don't think Charles Darwin was trying to turn the theological World on it's ear with his theory, he was just proposing some addition food for thought.

Originally posted by yogi9969
occasioned by the 150th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin,

umm 200th of his birth

150th or the first printing of 'Origin of species'

I'm afraid Darwin was wrong...

There has been No observation of Macro-evolution from one species to another:

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world.

Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete.

----------------------------

Yet observation of Micro-evolution Within an ORGANISM (ie: bacteria) is used to try to prove him right.




[edit on 2-7-09 by atoms.2008]

reply to post by atoms.2008


You cant support the premise of micro evolution and say you dont hold the same regard to macro..you just cant...really...its not possible.Both sides of the same coin.

reply to post by atoms.2008


you will probabily find your the one whos wrong

plenty of transitional forms, infact everyone found is tranistional in the case of human evolution we have so many its become a problem working out which belongs to which line and which is our. theres problems all right but deffinatley not a lack

and as for micro evolution i know your DEFFINATLEY wrong, how do i know? your deffinition is wrong i can see that from what youve written

micro has been seen a hell of a lot, speciation has been seen so often weve had to split it in to 4 types for the different occurances and influences

micro+speciation = macro

but hey give us YOUR deffinition, and i mean deffinition not just a couple of examples and we can check how close that is to the scientific deffinition

and when you say one species to another your gonna have to clarrify do you mean a species of canine to a species of felid? or a speciess of canine into another species or sub-species of canid?

[edit on 7/2/09 by noobfun]

If we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?

(not biased either way, just always wondered that)

Just a quick point out. Darwin's theories are about speciation and evolution through adaptation. He never addressed the origin of life. He addressed the Origin of Species. He was just interested how all the birds on Galapagos had adaptive traits that specialized them in form.


"ID" is not science. This doesn't mean there is no god, doesn't mean there was no creator. It means Science requires the statements to be tested. If the statement cannot be tested-it cannot conform to the criteria of science. It does not deserve to be taught as scientific anything. It is just an idea someone had.

Scientists do not debate Evolution. They debate the specifics of evolution. (Chemicals, transitions in environ etc.).

Keep god in philosophy and stop trying to cripple scientific theorum that has lead to cures in many diseases and extended life by decades please etc. etc..

Apes evolved with us as did many other primates,we all just share a common ancestor.And we are great apes btw..i mean we evolved with gorillas,chimpanzees etc

[edit on 7-2-2009 by Solomons]

Ya and some people think BUSH had nothing to do with the economic catastrophucke.

??? go figure

The answer is sort of summed up by this:

Why are all humans not black/white wth blonde/red/brown/black hair etc.

Different regions had different stresses on the people, closed areas also led to different traits such as hair color, skin color etc.

However these are trait differences, not species difference.

Obviously one could counter with something like 'thats how god made them'. I will pre-emptively scoff at that as this type of conversation requires at LEAST direct provable observation I would think.

ie: I can claim I have an invisible, intangible unicorn in my garage who never needs food or water, and gives me the sports scores when I want them... Doesnt change anything. I can't prove it. You cannot interact with it. It would be pointless to bring up and unlike describing a god, will get people to roll their eys and giggle.. A magic invisible horse? PREPOSTEROUS! and all that

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by atoms.2008

 

You cant support the premise of micro evolution and say you dont hold the same regard to macro..you just cant...really...its not possible.Both sides of the same coin.

Ahhh the old evolutionist penchant for doublespeak, semantics and various equivocations and wordsmithing.

Tell us Sol, just why "can't we ?

Why can't we unbind the darwinian faiths belief that taking a theory that has been empiracally tested and observed and merging it with the extraordinary claim of transpeciation, which has never been seen beyond what is already coded in the species DNA as variation to start with.

I realize merging one with the other and insisting we must accept one with the other puts us in a bit of a quagmire. Either we deny macro and be summarily ridiculed for denying all science in general or worse yet, being a "xtian" because we automatically deny micro OR we agree with what most all Christians agree is evolution, (like sun tans muscle growth from working out etc) and have it be mis-represented as another Christian convert to Darwinism for ALL evolution including the widely doubted and thoroughly debunked fantasy and fable of molecules to man macro, evolution. . I think the theory of everything is about the theory of nothing .

Like ID which is often said to be a religion (most likely a sub specie of the genus mormonatus or episcopalian era) conversely Darwinism attempts to back door lamarkism into the public schools but since that was debunked.

Many in the Science community are finally dumping the milstone of materialism, finding advanced methods of extending the scientific method beyond what we can merely see touch and taste but that we can gain a spiritual conduit to an ever higher level if self actualization and spiritual awareness. With that comes the confidence of death reather than the unknown. This is a place where in our finite vessel our human body or apparatus we can have this confidence in such natural consequences such as death for wa have gained an enlightened perspective othoroughlyne can only gain by allowing this knowingness of such quanta, to assume and inhabit our current vessel. Most are too timid to entertain such advanced ideas and spiritual realms. Others,, well they are usually Darwinists and still believe this to be the way people get "xtian cooties" and "Christiaphrenia."


Macro evolution??

Their probably is no macro evolution, so,,

enjoy your life.

Originally posted by lordtyp0

ie: I can claim I have an invisible, intangible unicorn in my garage who never needs food or water, and gives me the sports scores when I want them... Doesnt change anything. I can't prove it. You cannot interact with it. It would be pointless to bring up and unlike describing a god, will get people to roll their eys and giggle.. A magic invisible horse? PREPOSTEROUS! and all that

Ideas and limits like this are simply poppycock and self imposed.

Show me where the one horned equine is and I will show you how to prove it. This is easy to do once you know how providing of course this isn't a trick and there really isn't the intangible horned beast housed in your garage and you are only saying that in some kind of sardonic analogy for why one cannot prove the alpha and omega. I see that ploy used here often and i simply don't get it why such an obvious logical fallacy ad ignoratium is used so much moreover why it is not exploited for the device that it is.

You wouldn't be using it in that way would you ?

If no one had a concept for things that are invisible, we wouldn't have a word to describe such common phenomena.

Love? You believe it exists?

Ambition? exists?

when was the last time you spied the skys above you for many hours with infra red and saw the many varied craft doging in and out of this dimension?

[edit on 7-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by Solomons
Apes evolved with us as did many other primates,we all just share a common ancestor.And we are great apes btw..i mean we evolved with gorillas,chimpanzees etc

[edit on 7-2-2009 by Solomons]

Yes yes the "ancestor canard" yet if you mate with an ape you won't get an ape. You may get someone like mmmm Genus BabyDawkins but highly unlikely and to think those apes have had so much environmental stresses and pressure to bring them within smelling distance of extinction we would have seen so many many varied transitional forms and organs glands reverse engineering the ape creatures vessel, we find he is northing but merely a rough draft of the finished prototype creation of Homo man or human sentient being.

Apes however do not have resurectable vessels or a body if you like

Originally posted by LLoyd45
If God made the World, then evolution must have been God's plan all along. I don't think Charles Darwin was trying to turn the theological World on it's ear with his theory, he was just proposing some addition food for thought.

Of course it was just look at everything ever designed how we with our so called "intelligence" cannot make an original anything period.

We copy the intellectual property of so much of our creators original technologies and biodesigned life forms like birds we make airplanes but credit nothing to original patent owners design even calling it a cosmic lucky accident. Even while they say it took millions and millions of years, hehe I assume that is what it would have taken man if not for a bit of the living samples and DNA source code already left to copy from and build off.

Their is so much we are incapable of understanding that most Scientists who have worked in such Government classified facilities like area 51, cannot tolerate finding out how far off they were all this time and how much they still don't know much less are incapable of knowing. It is quite a blow to them and turnover is high. Egos,, such a drain on the old noodle ya know.







[edit on 7-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

Boo on your Decartes, Hume and Berkley references! boo I say!

Such things are fun to postulate about, but at the end of the day when you are assembling a computers motherboard, or taking a shot of insuline. Such thoughts of perception do not matter.

Thus at the end of the day, when all is said and done, all that matters is the very unromantic here and now.

The debate doesn't rage on. Evidence for evolution is there, and creationists go "no it's not, neener neener neener "

It's not a debate, it's complaining by the ignoramuses of the world.