Organic Evolution Considered

This book was a pretty amazing read, there are a lot of good arguments in it, I'm sure in the 100 years since its writing there are interesting counter arguments as well.

But as far as logic goes this book does a great job a disproving Evolution and Darwinism at any rate.

books.google.com...

It can be read fully there.

The Doctrine of cosmic evolution, of evolution in its widest scope, is fundamental in its bearings, including as it does all matter, all forces, and all events in nature. This all-comprehensive doctrine rests upon no adequate scientific basis. It is a theory the truth of which it is impossible to establish. The doctrine is often taught dogmatically and is accepted by many who have not carefully studied it in its various aspects.

Preface

This is so true, something people refuse to admit is that Evolution is itself a religion, a creation myth. Yes, it is rooted in scientific methods, but it has absolutely no scientific evidence to support it, they cannot mimic the creation of the first cellular organisms, they cannot force evolution to happen in a laboratory, they cannot predict evolutionary events, and as the author later proves, most organisms are not even in a state of "instability" but are "stable" and involved in a network which requires that stability which we loosely call the "web of life" or "food chain" and what have you.

It is true, I believe, that the theory of Evolution has contributed to Atheism, and especially to Agnosticism. It has been common with Evolutionists to deny that Nature furnishes evidence of the existence an Intelligent Creator.
Some of them seem to delight in affirming the lack of design in Nature, as if there could be some special merit in a Universe where there is no manifestation of intelligence.
As for myself, I prefer to believe in and to seek the highest possible form of existence of which my mind can conceive.

Page 13

Remarkable, I truly believe that only an Atheist or Agnostic can truly believe in evolution, if you believe in any god what so ever, evolution cannot be possible, because God, or gods would have omnipotence that evolution simply doesn't allow for, because evolution strictly says that there is no hand of a god driving the evolution of species or the universe for any purpose.

What does it mean when Mr. Fairhurst says he prefers to seek the highest possible form of existence? This is what all Christians are called, seekers, for the mind can logically conceive that there is more to life, more permanent life, and how to attain it? The answer to that question is for the theological thread.

Here however I want to start quoting examples of this literary masterpiece, especially as Mr. Fairhurst starts discussing the actual sciences, not just Biology, but Physics as well, to start deconstructing the Evolution theory.

It is true that the chemist has manufactured certain organic compounds from their inorganic elements, but in no case has he been able to produce from inorganic matter an organic compound that is an essential part of the tissues of a living being, and, least of all has he been able to manufacture protoplasm which is the absolutely essential substance in every living thing.

Page 62

I wonder for instance if this is still true, 116 years later after he made the observation then.

FreeMason

This is so true, something people refuse to admit is that Evolution is itself a religion, a creation myth. Yes, it is rooted in scientific methods, but it has absolutely no scientific evidence to support it

That is a lie

they cannot mimic the creation of the first cellular organisms,

Evolution does not attempt to answer the origins of life, just the mechanisms by which genetic change occurs over time; therefore, it does not need to answer this question.

they cannot force evolution to happen in a laboratory, they cannot predict evolutionary events,

There is plenty of evidence for evolution. We have seen genetic change over time in the lab.

most organisms are not even in a state of "instability" but are "stable" and involved in a network which requires that stability which we loosely call the "web of life" or "food chain" and what have you.

That is not true. The Earth is not stable but dynamic. Environmental factors change; therefore organisms adapt or their genetic line die out. Genetic change occurs in every generation; therefore, once again is not stable.

Remarkable, I truly believe that only an Atheist or Agnostic can truly believe in evolution, if you believe in any god what so ever, evolution cannot be possible, because God, or gods would have omnipotence that evolution simply doesn't allow for, because evolution strictly says that there is no hand of a god driving the evolution of species or the universe for any purpose.

Yep, those damn atheists, Moving in and ruining the fabric of good christian upbringing. Evolution and faith can co-exist. It just means humans aren't the center of creation, just as the Earth is not the center of the universe.

Now more to the point. If it is impossible to believe evolution is involved, then by the same logic gravity does not exist, since why would an omnipotent god require some random force to act according to the laws of physics.

What does it mean when Mr. Fairhurst says he prefers to seek the highest possible form of existence?

He applies a non-existent sense of worth, which is exactly what you do further in the paragraph.

This is what all Christians are called, seekers, for the mind can logically conceive that there is more to life, more permanent life, and how to attain it? The answer to that question is for the theological thread.

This very quote will explain a lot. For in it, you have taken Christians and made them superior to all other humans. You have attributed a manufactured sense of self worth that does not exist.

reply to post by Cypress


It's difficult when someone splits quotes the way you do (a lot of people do this I'm not singling you out), it makes posts unmanageably long and I can't properly reply to you with a quote because it's unmanageable to pick through all the pieces.

Evolution is a religion, to say something is true without absolute proof is faith. Since science has hardly proved evolution then anyone who espouses it is how the world was made is a religious zealot proselytizing their view of creation.

As for "evolution only considers organisms" wrong, that is why this book is titled "Organic Evolution Considered" because Mr. Fairhurst deals largely with organisms, and not the evolution of stars or the universe. But the whole universe by Evolutionists is considered to be "progressing" from some point of origin to its present state.

As far as "Christians being superior" that is your own personal view of what I actually said, which is that Christians call themselves seekers because they seek more and higher things than what the base world has to offer.

An Atheist can hardly conceive of a better life than what little they now have, this is a philosophical truth. To deny it is to deny reason and logic.

Oh and the stability of species they are absolutely stable.

In the book this thread is about, Mr. Fairhurst, enumerates many examples of species that have lived on earth for a supposed hundreds of millions or billions of years without "evolving" and points to modern examples to show their stability through time.

And what you see as evolution shown through genetic change in laboratory is not evolution at all, in fact, everything argued to be evolution is in fact adaptation.

For example, a bacteria does not evolve when it mutates because these mutations merely express and alter the genetic expression of that bacteria to adapt.

The bacteria does not cease to be bacteria and become some greater organism. Until you can prove that bacteria can become a higher form of life, evolution has no leg to stand on.

Honestly I have never had a problem reconciling the Genius that is Evolution and a brilliant God who designed it...

The magical mystery god who creates by breaking the very laws of the nature they created makes little sense to me.

FreeMason
The bacteria does not cease to be bacteria and become some greater organism. Until you can prove that bacteria can become a higher form of life, evolution has no leg to stand on.

1. What is a greater organism?
2. What is a higher form of life?

What about Progressive Creation / Theistic Evolution?

FreeMason
reply to post by Cypress

 

It's difficult when someone splits quotes the way you do (a lot of people do this I'm not singling you out), it makes posts unmanageably long and I can't properly reply to you with a quote because it's unmanageable to pick through all the pieces.

I do this to directly address each aspect of the post that has multiple points to address. IMO this keeps the post nice, clean and does not allow for misinterpretation of what point is being discussed.

Evolution is a religion, to say something is true without absolute proof is faith. Since science has hardly proved evolution then anyone who espouses it is how the world was made is a religious zealot proselytizing their view of creation.

No, there is plenty of evidence for evolution, for which there is none for creationism. This goes back to creationist fallacy of trying to bring science into the realm of theology which does not work.

As for "evolution only considers organisms" wrong, that is why this book is titled "Organic Evolution Considered" because Mr. Fairhurst deals largely with organisms, and not the evolution of stars or the universe. But the whole universe by Evolutionists is considered to be "progressing" from some point of origin to its present state.

Evolution is merely the process by which life changes and expresses those genetic changes over time.

As far as "Christians being superior" that is your own personal view of what I actually said, which is that Christians call themselves seekers because they seek more and higher things than what the base world has to offer.

An Atheist can hardly conceive of a better life than what little they now have, this is a philosophical truth. To deny it is to deny reason and logic.

You attribute a quality that you believe comes with being religious, specifically Christians, that allows them to seek out and obtain a quality of life that is better than one who does not hold with that mindset. That is attributing a quality you feel makes those religiously inclined as being superior to those without such inclinations.

Oh and the stability of species they are absolutely stable.

In the book this thread is about, Mr. Fairhurst, enumerates many examples of species that have lived on earth for a supposed hundreds of millions or billions of years without "evolving" and points to modern examples to show their stability through time.

Every generation genetic information changes, Ecosystems change over time. Life is continuously changing. The Earth is dynamic and so is genetics.

And what you see as evolution shown through genetic change in laboratory is not evolution at all, in fact, everything argued to be evolution is in fact adaptation.

Adaptation is part of the process of evolution. Evolution is genetic change over time.

For example, a bacteria does not evolve when it mutates because these mutations merely express and alter the genetic expression of that bacteria to adapt.

The bacteria does not cease to be bacteria and become some greater organism. Until you can prove that bacteria can become a higher form of life, evolution has no leg to stand on.

edit on 15-10-2013 by FreeMason because: (no reason given)

Every form of life on earth is made of the same material by the same chemical principles.

reply to post by FreeMason

Given that this person didn't understand, when he wrote this "literary masterpiece", why atoms can give off multiple spectral lines instead of a single line for each element, I'd take anything he says on a scientific level with a grain of salt.

This is a key reason why creationists keep trying to thump on Darwin while the rest of us moved on almost 100 years ago when Mendelian genetics was integrated with Darwin's concepts of natural selection and modern evolutionary synthesis was born. That was fifty years after Darwin and Mendel's initial work, and the hundred years since haven't exactly slowed down the level understanding we have. So please, try and keep up and stop using books published in 1897 as your "proof" that evolution is wrong.

iterationzero
reply to post by FreeMason

 

Given that this person didn't understand, when he wrote this "literary masterpiece", why atoms can give off multiple spectral lines instead of a single line for each element, I'd take anything he says on a scientific level with a grain of salt.

This is a key reason why creationists keep trying to thump on Darwin while the rest of us moved on almost 100 years ago when Mendelian genetics was integrated with Darwin's concepts of natural selection and modern evolutionary synthesis was born. That was fifty years after Darwin and Mendel's initial work, and the hundred years since haven't exactly slowed down the level understanding we have. So please, try and keep up and stop using books published in 1897 as your "proof" that evolution is wrong.

So somehow logic and reason has changed in the last 100 years? Understanding of how things work has, which is why he is using out of date chemistry, but his logical arguments are extremely valid.

All you are is condescending and pathetic, if you want to disprove this book, quote some of Mr. Fairhurst's arguments and then disprove them with sound logic and reasoning. Otherwise get lost. Since you haven't quoted one thing from this book I don't think you have one piece of evidence for Evolution other than your undaunted zealotous religious belief.

Cypress

FreeMason
reply to post by Cypress

 

It's difficult when someone splits quotes the way you do (a lot of people do this I'm not singling you out), it makes posts unmanageably long and I can't properly reply to you with a quote because it's unmanageable to pick through all the pieces.

I do this to directly address each aspect of the post that has multiple points to address. IMO this keeps the post nice, clean and does not allow for misinterpretation of what point is being discussed.

Evolution is a religion, to say something is true without absolute proof is faith. Since science has hardly proved evolution then anyone who espouses it is how the world was made is a religious zealot proselytizing their view of creation.

No, there is plenty of evidence for evolution, for which there is none for creationism. This goes back to creationist fallacy of trying to bring science into the realm of theology which does not work.

There is no evidence of Evolution, adapting within genetic limits is not evidence of evolution. Post this evidence and prove it isn't merely adaptation.

As for "evolution only considers organisms" wrong, that is why this book is titled "Organic Evolution Considered" because Mr. Fairhurst deals largely with organisms, and not the evolution of stars or the universe. But the whole universe by Evolutionists is considered to be "progressing" from some point of origin to its present state.

Evolution is merely the process by which life changes and expresses those genetic changes over time.

No this is adaptation, Evolution is speciation, or more specifically the creation of new from the old. You cannot and have not shown this to ever have happened. To say one thing evolved into another is a great leap of faith.

As far as "Christians being superior" that is your own personal view of what I actually said, which is that Christians call themselves seekers because they seek more and higher things than what the base world has to offer.

An Atheist can hardly conceive of a better life than what little they now have, this is a philosophical truth. To deny it is to deny reason and logic.

You attribute a quality that you believe comes with being religious, specifically Christians, that allows them to seek out and obtain a quality of life that is better than one who does not hold with that mindset. That is attributing a quality you feel makes those religiously inclined as being superior to those without such inclinations.

It is impossible for an Atheist to conceive of anything greater than what the world has to offer them, end of discussion on this simple tenant of Atheism.

Oh and the stability of species they are absolutely stable.

In the book this thread is about, Mr. Fairhurst, enumerates many examples of species that have lived on earth for a supposed hundreds of millions or billions of years without "evolving" and points to modern examples to show their stability through time.

Every generation genetic information changes, Ecosystems change over time. Life is continuously changing. The Earth is dynamic and so is genetics.

If it were dynamic please explain the stability of Cyanobacteria?

And what you see as evolution shown through genetic change in laboratory is not evolution at all, in fact, everything argued to be evolution is in fact adaptation.

Adaptation is part of the process of evolution. Evolution is genetic change over time.

There is absolutely no evidence that adaptation leads to evolution. Bacteria adapt, they never cease to be anything other than bacteria.

For example, a bacteria does not evolve when it mutates because these mutations merely express and alter the genetic expression of that bacteria to adapt.

The bacteria does not cease to be bacteria and become some greater organism. Until you can prove that bacteria can become a higher form of life, evolution has no leg to stand on.

edit on 15-10-2013 by FreeMason because: (no reason given)

Every form of life on earth is made of the same material by the same chemical principles.

Changes nothing about adaptation versus evolution.

And I suppose the break/quote isn't too unmanageable but it's certainly a process

reply to post by FreeMason


Skulls A and N belong to contemporary species. Skulls from B to M have been arranged from oldest to newest. How do you interpret this data?

reply to post by FreeMason

So somehow logic and reason has changed in the last 100 years? Understanding of how things work has, which is why he is using out of date chemistry, but his logical arguments are extremely valid.

This would be a great argument for your "literary masterpiece" if science were solely conducted via logic. Fortunately this is not the case, if it were no one would find it necessary to conduct scientific experiments because they would have determined the outcome via logic already. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the scientific method and understand that he can use all of the logic in the world based on the scientific understanding almost 125 years ago, but unless he can produce some kind of actual data that runs contrary to evolution, he has proven nothing except in his own head.

All you are is condescending and pathetic, if you want to disprove this book, quote some of Mr. Fairhurst's arguments and then disprove them with sound logic and reasoning. Otherwise get lost. Since you haven't quoted one thing from this book I don't think you have one piece of evidence for Evolution other than your undaunted zealotous religious belief.

I'm sorry that you view my comments as condescending and pathetic, but the fact of the matter is I don't need to disprove your "literary masterpiece". It's an argument against Darwin, which is only one facet of modern evolutionary synthesis, and it's not even a particularly good argument against Darwin. Why do I need to disprove a book that seems to be the blueprint for all of the creationist chestnuts that have already been debunked? Your "literary masterpiece" even features a prototype of the infamous "if man evolved from apes, why are there still apes" argument.

The bulk of the evidence that supports evolution is genetic, not fossil. To such a degree that even if we had never found a single fossil, the genetic evidence would be sufficient that modern evolutionary synthesis would still be the dominant theory of biological diversity today. Why do I need to disprove a book written before genetics were even understood?

If creationists could be bothered to keep up with science, there would be far fewer creationists.