Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Darwin's Fatal Admission

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Sweetmystery
 


I do agree with you


I'm not sure why people find the idea of intelligent design so horrific?
Do they equate intelligent design with bible-thumping idiots?
And if so, why?

My grandaddy was a surgeon, and he was not into organized religion of any kind. However, he did believe in intelligent design. I asked him why, and he told me that after working with the human body so closely, he couldn't deny it anymore.




posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Sweetmystery
 


As has been pointed out to you many times now evolution is not the same thing as abiogenesis. Evolution explains the diversity of organic life. Abiogenesis attempts to explain how that life emerged in the first place. This author is arguing against abiogenesis, not evolution. Also, there is no such thing as Darwinism. The field of evolutionary biology has *gasp* evolved over the past 150 years into something much more complex and complete. It is called the modern evolutionary synthesis.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by CodyOutlaw
 


It is interesting that 'they' can only get snarky and cannot come up with real answers--

Its also a nice observation that the "non-believers' are so rude and angry---

God is Love and if you let God into your heart, you won't feel so mean inside.

Or at least to realize the Mystery is beyond our grasp--and that Intelligence is clearly one of Love.

Love is the Answer---



edit on 29-5-2012 by Sweetmystery because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Sweetmystery
 


As has been pointed out to you many times now evolution is not the same thing as abiogenesis. Evolution explains the diversity of organic life. Abiogenesis attempts to explain how that life emerged in the first place. This author is arguing against abiogenesis, not evolution. Also, there is no such thing as Darwinism. The field of evolutionary biology has *gasp* evolved over the past 150 years into something much more complex and complete. It is called the modern evolutionary synthesis.


And How did this diversity happen? and how did the DNA come to be so Intelligent? and How did this synthesis of complexity happen? Was there no Intelligence behind the organization? It was just dumb luck?
edit on 29-5-2012 by Sweetmystery because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sweetmystery
reply to post by CodyOutlaw
 


It is interesting that 'they' can only get snarky and cannot come up with real answers--

Its also a nice observation that the "non-believers' are so rude and angry---

God is Love and if you let God into your heart, you won't feel so mean inside.

Or at least to realize the Mystery is beyond our grasp--and that Intelligence is clearly one of Love.

Love is the Answer---



edit on 29-5-2012 by Sweetmystery because: (no reason given)


I think someone's giving Tooth a run for his money. Minus the aliens, of course.

Look up modern evolutionary synthesis and broaden your horizons.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sweetmystery


And How did this diversity happen?


Evolution.


and how did the DNA come to be so Intelligent?


DNA is not intelligent. It's a nucleic acid consisting of two long anti-parallel polymers with backbones made of sugars and phosphates joined with ester bonds. It's simple chemistry. Intelligence has nothing to do with it.


and How did this synthesis of complexity happen?


This is a common misconception. Complexity does not equal design. Something can be complex and yet not need a designer.


Was there no Intelligence behind the organization? It was just dumb luck?


It was random, which is a heck of a lot different than dumb luck. More and more research is being done showing that given the right conditions and enough time, life is probably inevitable. For example, it's been shown that RNA can self-organize and self-replicate.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
As if there was any problem beliving in god and evolution at the same time. The only problem is beliving that the bible is 100% fact and believing evolution. Maybe you should choose a religon that have not problem evolving or not be fundamentalistic with your view and know that you know more about some things than the people writing the bible. I promise you that you know more about some things that Jesus did not know and Jesus knew things you do not know. It is like that for everyone on this planet. Knowledge and wisdom and experiance is divided.

I also belive in big bang. That is for me the moment god devided himself, the all that is one.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 




So RNA is not intelligent, it just self-organizes and duplicates for no reason? It just 'does that' on its own? and this RNA came from where? how did it evolve to exist at all? or it came from nothing and out of nowhere?
edit on 29-5-2012 by Sweetmystery because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-5-2012 by Sweetmystery because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
You and the author obviously never bothered to read the theory in the first place, otherwise you'd understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. It doesn't matter how life first started for the theory to be valid. Whether it's abiogenesis, a God or several, or a giant purple space turtle farming it into existence...biodiversity would still be the result of evolution.

For crying out loud, the theory is applied every single day in modern medicine. If it were wrong, we couldn't use it to accurately predict future outcomes



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
You and the author obviously never bothered to read the theory in the first place, otherwise you'd understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. It doesn't matter how life first started for the theory to be valid. Whether it's abiogenesis, a God or several, or a giant purple space turtle farming it into existence...biodiversity would still be the result of evolution.

For crying out loud, the theory is applied every single day in modern medicine. If it were wrong, we couldn't use it to accurately predict future outcomes


Oh, ok, so then the folks who study abiogenesis do actually believe in God, they just don't refer to It as God--- and they just do not know "what" exactly That IT is--- That works for me!

Then the abiogenesis does realize there is "something" that comes first---and then, of course, that "something" would, (no matter how far you wish to go trying to name it), would eventually be "something" that was not "caused" ---It would be at the very end of the line (or the beginning as we would say) It had to have been Always and Just Being, and It did not come from 'anything'--- It, whatever It is, would have to be The Source that has no source --- It would have to be something that has no beginning and thus no end, therefore is Infinite and eternal and out side of time, or not subject to time---Now whatever you want to call THAT is up to you---but I would call It the Divine Mystery and for me that is what God is.

So, ok, whatever you want to think about 'how this God' manifests as 'biogenesis' Is still Something Intelligent that 'causes' this bio-synthesis--- at some point, one must admit there is Something Is and Always Was that is the Warp and Woof of All That Is---

I do not see how one can honestly believe this world is simply material stuff that evolves from out of nothing--- One would have to be actually just kidding to think that is even close to possible.

If it is Nothing, then that Nothing must exist as Something---you do see that? Yes? And that Something must be Omnipresent and All and must Be without a beginning---call it "nothing" if you like, but It is Something to be "nothing' or else its not known and cannot be. Yet we know this "nothing" was really Something because we exist, we Be --- because We are Being right now, we know This Something Exists right Now.
edit on 29-5-2012 by Sweetmystery because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Sweetmystery
 


Darwin never describes how Something came to be. But it is now popular, even required to believe in this illogic of nothing sponsoring it. When something as miraculous and infinitely complex as the universe (in its inescapably lawful nature) is described as coming from an accident – one just sighs.

Again, it seems as though the author of the book – and therefore by extension you – are having trouble separating evolution from abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a study of how life began, evolution is the study of how that life changes once it already exists. They are related, but they are not the same thing.

Further, the concept of life resulting from an “accident” is typical of creationists. It’s an emotionally charged word. Is it really an accident when the chemical reactions that govern the formation of amino acids, RNA, DNA, etc. occur readily in the presence of the basic molecules that were present 4 By ago here on Earth?


This was a first. That one man could audaciously claim against the lead of all amazing minds of history – whose shoulders he stood on that Nothingness (in a dumb explosion of miraculous Lawful detail) could be the reason All things exist – was a height of intellectual egotistic-hubris.

What’s the greater hubris? Saying that we don’t know exactly how it happened but we’re going to keep investigating it or saying that, because we don’t know exactly how it happened, God must have created it all just for us?


Sometimes certain ones desire to be an iconoclast-’truth giver’ or just the ‘first one’ to say something. What we find, as with any new Idea, Fad, Religion, Philosophy or Discipline is, the followers make it into a ‘sacred’ sacrosanct object, or into a zealous ‘belonging’.

Darwin wasn’t the first to espouse the idea that species can change over time and that traits can be passed down through generations, so he was hardly an iconoclast.


I absorbed Darwin’s self proclaimed theory and its principles, anecdotal indicators its ideation and its supposed “certainty” because the public school system in America and many others now teach the theory as a FACT. But near the end of his life Darwin offered up a fearful unease that what he wrote could create a debilitating effect.

The best part of the theory of evolution is that you don’t have to “believe” it just because it was part of your education. It’s that it’s science – you can view all of the recorded evidence for it yourself.


He never got to see its full flowered worldwide acceptance and dogmatically pressured promulgation. It’s truly pressured now almost everywhere. Many are fired from institutions of higher learning for not believing it, Or in pointing to ideas such as intelligent design (ID) in their class rooms. (See the movie: "Expelled").

The reason for evolution being taught in classrooms while intelligent design creationism is not is simple, and it has nothing to do with dogma – science operates on a tyranny of evidence, not a democracy of belief. You either have the evidence to support your claims or you don’t. Evolution does. Creationism doesn’t. It’s really that simple.

The rest of your quoted material from the book is more of the same. Based on what you’re presenting here, it seems like the author has a metaphysical issue with the theory of evolution, not a scientific one.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Sweetmystery
 

More metaphysical arguments against science in general and evolution in particular, but I’m still not seeing any real refutation of evolution just claims that it’s wrong.


I know through my decades of research in all forms of science, that evolution has no evidentiary reality. It’s from the perspective of atheistic science’s disbelief in a Prime Mover, but it means there’s no evidence. Yet it is presented as having certainty to it.

Then the author should be presenting his alternative explanation for the century and a half of evidence that has been gathered which supports evolution. Amusing that he claims it’s the invention of an atheist given that Darwin was not one.


This is merely ego-pushing not science. Science proves. Science Knows. Science tests, retests, reproves, verifies, and comes at it again from as many perspectives as possible to verify its veracity. Yet they cannot explain the fact of, or the reason for an infinite, fine, shimmering energetic pulse of liveliness in all of time-space-matter-energy. I would assert that most of them do not even know about that.

Science doesn’t prove. Nothing is ever proven in science. Ever. Science relies on a system of falsification – frame your hypothesis, test it, if it survives, keep testing it until it doesn’t. If you’re lucky, nothing ever falsifies it and the evidence keeps mounting in favor of it and you keep building upon it and building upon it.

And as for his “an infinite, fine, shimmering energetic pulse of liveliness in all of time-space-matter-energy”, feel free to present the objective evidence for it any day now. Otherwise it’s just the same bunch of quantum woo that’s been peddled for years now.


Darwinism has never done this reproving, testing, etc. – Evolution cannot even do this even if they desired to which they do not. The ruling elite in evolutionary biology wish to maintain their esteemed positions of influence, money, authority.

Except that evolution is observable, verifiable, and reproducible. Any claim to the contrary is born out of one of two things: dishonesty or ignorance. Would you prefer the author of this book of your be a liar or just stupid?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Sweetmystery
 


If it’s ever shown that systems have to arise together, simultaneously to survive forward (impossible by his own admission) then his theory’s proven wrong. It looks like the eyeball proves that, thank you Charles.

He never claimed it was impossible, just the he couldn't conceive of how it happened. Your assumption that evolution must be false based on a gap in the theory is a variant on an argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy called a "God of the gaps" argument -- that because our knowledge of something is incomplete, God must have done it. It's called a logical fallacy for a reason.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Sweetmystery
 

You've been provided with real answers, you'd just rather call them "snarky" and ignore their content.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
some of these science maniacs are very aggressive on the internet, they need to relax and just see what happens when we get there yeah, by the way, I love science (for the most part)- I like the fact that I do not have to get a leg amputated without anaesthetic for example- I can still dig that and dig the non physical aspect of existence


oh yeah



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sweetmystery
reply to post by HappyBunny
 




So RNA is not intelligent, it just self-organizes and duplicates for no reason?


Correct.


It just 'does that' on its own?


Yes.


and this RNA came from where? how did it evolve to exist at all? or it came from nothing and out of nowhere?
edit on 29-5-2012 by Sweetmystery because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-5-2012 by Sweetmystery because: (no reason given)


It's called chemistry. RNA is simply a nucleic acid.

Look, organic molecules exist in the dead of space. Put them together and chemistry takes over.
edit on 5/29/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Sweetmystery
 




One thing for sure, the Darwinists never ask "so where did the first 'cell' that divides come from


No, of course not, no one has EVER asked that question. Well sweetmystery, you caught us with our pants down, no one has ever questioned where the first cell came from


Except for a whole lot of scientists trying to figure out how abiogenesis took place.




or he even takes it to DNA and how DNA was not known about during Darwin's time.


DNA wasn't known about but heredity was, it was well understood that parents pass on traits to their offspring. Since that is the basis for evolution Darwin didn't need DNA to propose his theory. Of course SINCE DNA is now well known Evolution is much more easily proven, since now we know how and why mutations and changes in the genetic code occur and can even compare our genetic code with that of other organisms to determine evolutionary lineage more accurately than using mere morphology.



but they do not ask 'yes, so where did that other planet come from"


These questions are painfully stupid, please tell me you didn't actually pay money for this book you read, because if so you got ripped off big time. Most planets form via a process known as accretion, which is where debris orbiting a star will gather because of gravity. This is grade school level science by the way. Panspermia is hardly the leading hypothesis on the origin of life on Earth though it remains a remote and interesting possibility.

It's far more likely that life originated here on Earth. By the way regardless of the origin of life you do know that evolution is a proven fact right? And please don't retort that "it's not a fact, it's just a theory" because if I have to explain the difference between a scientific theory and a layman's theory again I might vomit blood




It's really a good book!


It sounds incredibly stupid. I'm almost tempted to read it and post a play by play debunking of it, but that would take time, money, and invoking copious amounts of fair use.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


DNA has been known about since the 1860's, actually, but they didn't think it was important because it didn't appear to DO anything. It's one of the most non-reactive molecules in nature. There was a scientist, I forget his name, who wrote in a letter to his uncle that he suspected it could be the agent behind heredity.

The question of the beginnings of life is at least as old as the Greeks.
edit on 5/29/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Interesting, I didn't know that. Could it have been Gregor Mendel who wrote the letter? I do remember he supposedly wrote a letter to Darwin but never sent it, something to that affect, I'm not sure. Either way as long as heredity was well known Darwin's theory was plenty sound enough to go public with it.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Hi Titen,

It wasn't Mendel. I'll dig for it and get back to you. It's right on the tip of my tongue (or keyboard!) but I can't think of it.

That's going to drive me crazy.


It's funny but the biggest argument against Darwin at the time was that there was no mechanism for it. Even Darwin knew it was a weak spot. Darwin simply never read Mendel, event though he had a copy of Mendel's paper. That's no guarantee he'd have put two and two together, but it might have been more likely he would have.

Even then, Darwin's idea wasn't new. It was just a matter of time, and poor Chambers got scooped.
edit on 5/29/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join