Is Darwin dead...
 

Four Visual Images of Evolution
The first image came from the experiment of Stanley Miller who, in 1953, artificially produced a red goo consisting of amino acids. The implication? God was out of a job if natural processes could explain the origin of life.

The second image came from Charles Darwin’s Origin of the
Species. The only illustration in the book depicted a tree whose trunk represented an ancient ancestor. The tree grew upwards into limbs and branches, illustrating how millions of species of organisms evolved over a magnificent expanse
of time.

The third image was Ernst Haeckel’s drawings of embryos,
found in practically every book on evolution. He placed embryonic pictures of various vertebrae sideby-side showing how strikingly similar they are at the beginning stages of development. His conclusion was that we have a common
ancestry.

The fourth was the archaeopteryx, the famous fossil from a birdlizard-like creature dating back 150 million years. Scientists hailed it as the missing link between modern
birds and reptiles.

The Images of Evolution Exposed.
Evolutionists continue to use these four images to support their views. In fact, these images still appear in most science textbooks. But do they represent truth? In an interview with Jonathan Wells, senior fellow with the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture, he claimed that each image is either false or misleading.

The validity of the Miller experiment hinges on how well he was able to simulate with accuracy the atmosphere of the early earth. He wasn’t able. He used a hydrogen-rich mixture that included methane and ammonia. There is no evidence at all that this was the makeup of early earth’s atmosphere. If you do Miller’s experiment today with a more accurate simulation, the result is formaldehyde and cyanide and certainly not amino acids.

Darwin’s tree of life accurately represents his views. But Darwin himself admitted that fossil records failed to support his tree of life image. He concurred that there was a major group of animals (phyla) that suddenly appeared on the record. He trusted that future discoveries would substantiate his views. But actually the opposite is true. After the Cambrian explosion more than 540 million years ago, fully developed animals appeared with no semblance of evolutionary processes.

What about Haeckel’s embryos?
Haeckel lined up drawings of various embryos (including fish, tortoise, chicken, human) to demonstrate their striking similari-ties and he concluded that we all have common ancestry. But modern embryonic photographs look vastly different from Haeckel’s drawings. Actually, his depictions are fake. He doctored them up to make them appear to be similar. Moreover, he chose only the embryos that had similarities, purposefully omitting those not supporting his theory.

Does the archaeopteryx provide Darwin’s missing link? Hardly. Darwin admitted his theory depended on future fossil discoveries to authenticate his views. Oddly, only two years after he published The Origin of the Species, the archaeopteryx was discovered. Today, most paleontologists agree that it is not a half-bird, half-reptile. They believe it simply represents an extinct member of the bird family.

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

Yes, he's dead. Idiocy thrives though.

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

godBoy,

You are special. You are an absolutely useful manifestation of lack of education. Well, you said you were home educated by an egyptian monk. Maybe so, I just don't think the monk was very well educated. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

I liked godBoy better when his name was txag007

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I liked godBoy better when his name was txag007

[/ QUOTE ]

I see. Something to hide. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

The world is flat. There is no evidence that the earth is round, except for a bunch of doctored photographs that aren't very convincing at all.

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

Just curious... How old do you think the earth is, godBoy?

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

Since this is a passage from someone else's work you really should give a citation.

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

Google give us this:

http://www.christianbooksummaries.co...hp?v=3&i=6

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

Hey godboy, Christians are not scientists, they are story tellers.

Don't attempt to transition, you will be made to look foolish.

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

godBoy, you (and many others) are being duped by the ID-creationist movement (it's their strategy). If you honestly want to know why Jonathan Wells is wrong, try this

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html

or this

http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/


It is a lot to read. Just skipping it is no doubt the easy way out. That way, all belief-systems will be intact, and one can live on in blissful ignorance.

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

This is just silly, there are many christian scientists.
This is just holding all christians in contempt and not allowing anything they say even if true to even be considered.

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

yep, that is where I got the summary. Remember though, this is just one persons summary of the book.

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

I have no idea, but doesn't the expansion rate of the universe give us a reasonably accurate estimate?

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

and the shape of the light on the moon?

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

wasn't me I'm afraid.

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

Thankyou for only response so far that has not just passed ID off as a religious movement having no place in the arena of science. I am not being duped as such, I just want to hear people's defence of Darwin.
If it is scientifically disproven then show me, this is what I am wanting to know.
Just because a christian said it, it can't possibly be true seems stupid to me. Christian men and women throughout history have said a lot of things that are in fact correct...
Thanks for the link, I'll have a read through.

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

These sort of comments make me think of myself more highly.
Obviously I was joking with the egyptian monk thing, if you're really curious I recieved an enter of 83.5 and am studying a Software Development degree and am 2 years through it. This doesn't make me a genius but doesn't make me stupid either.

I have come to believe that science is the quest for truth, most of the people here are so sure that they've found it that they no longer need to ask any questions. I seem like the only person who admits not to know everything and is wanting to. You continue with these arrogant remarks that don't even attempt to refute anything I am presenting.
This is the 'open heart to recieve truth' that the bible says is a neccesity for you to find Him. Admit how little we can know being humans and seek truth, or just sit on your hands.

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

[ QUOTE ]
and the shape of the light on the moon?

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't prove anything. It could come from anything. Like a GORILLA.



(god I hope someone gets this joke)

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

Don't you love how evolutionists almost never use the fact that "THIS guy with a PhD believes in evolution!" as part of their argument?

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

It comes from comments like "christians are story tellers, not scientists", but this is incorrect. Some people take those well educated more seriously... as they should.

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

Hey godboy,

The fact remains that Miller did produce amino acids using only compounds that existed in the Universe before life started. He did create the building blocks of life without God.


Many life forms appeared in Cambrian explosion - some with past evolutionary fossil evidence others without. Nobody ever said we have a complete fossil record of all the creatures that have lived, especially the invertebrates.

Haeckel only " chose embryos that had similarities , purposefully omitting those not supporting his theory."

Do you realize what you said here? Why do any embryos from different species have similarities? Duh - evolution. You just gave credence to one of the best 'proofs' of evolution.

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

"The fact remains that Miller did produce amino acids using only compounds that existed in the Universe before life started. He did create the building blocks of life without God."

This is not the point though. It's wether the compounds that he used in his experiment were an accurate makeup - the same as the early earth. This is not what he did - he made an experiment and put the things there that would create amino-acids, a biased experiment.

"Nobody ever said we have a complete fossil record of all the creatures that have lived, especially the invertebrates."

Darwin said that the fossil record would support his 'theories', this is not the case. Though some people have glued some fossils together to try and fool people into thinking it was the case.

I think if God had already designed a wheel, he could keep using it... This is what all tradespeople do with the materials they use. I'm not saying that evolution is completely wrong either, it's quite possible that we have been made with the ability to evolve.

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

godBoy-

I suggest you wander through this for a while: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...e=0#Post3997192

It's the EXHAUSTING evolution debate, to go in the record books as NotReady vs Everybody. It was a horrible battle, and many lives were lost, and we sure as hell don't want to go through it again.

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine this scenario:

There's this dude. He somehow came to be without any cause. Imagine that! Now he's got infinite powers. So he comes up with an idea...he'll create a place with some finite, though intelligent, beings. This place will be perfect (except for the fact that there's an evil snake in it, and the people are capable of sin). Then when they do, he'll curse all of their offspring forever to burn in hell...unless of course they believe that a dude (who won't come for another 4,000 years...God's lazy) died for them and that because he did, they won't burn in a torturous nightmare for all eternity.

Then he won't say or do anything for another 2,000 years that would make an intelligent person think he exists, except write a book (well...have some people write the book, that is) that is wrought with contradictions. Other people will write books about other fake gods, but God doesn't think that taking the same route to reveal His existence that other people have taken to reveal the existence of other gods will be confusing, or damage his credibility to intelligent people. He'll also structure the universe and humans in such a way to make man, through centuries of scientific development, come to the rational conclusion that they evolved from other animals, by doing things like making us with tailbones, and filling the earth with million year old fossils. And if they get thrown off by this, they burn in hell forever. At least two thirds of these people will end up with this horrible fate.

He'll also pack it full of mosquitos, dung beetles and honey badgers. Why? Shut up.

So God thinks about this plan, understands what it entails, and knows all the consequences. Maybe he considers other plans that don't involve so much suffering, superfluousness, and logical contradictions, but in the end, he likes his plan, and goes through with it.

Good job.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi.

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

I have come to believe that science is the quest for truth, most of the people here are so sure that they've found it that they no longer need to ask any questions. I seem like the only person who admits not to know everything and is wanting to.

Darwin said that the fossil record would support his 'theories', this is not the case. Though some people have glued some fossils together to try and fool people into thinking it was the case.


Hahaha.

Go away.

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

The question was related to Darwins claims, not christianity's God.. I don't care to discuss it here.

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

Nope, I don't get it.
It's fact that the fossil record has not supported Darwins claims, history shows that, I'm not just saying it with no evidence.

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

And your point is?

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nope, I don't get it.
It's fact that the fossil record has not supported Darwins claims, history shows that, I'm not just saying it with no evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]
godBoy, you are being a bad boy here. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
For the last 150 years, evry evidence has bee supportive of Drawin theory. Furthermore, completely independent disciplines have ope the way to further test in ways unepected evn by Darwin. DNA technology for instance. The research is accelerating constantly to the point where there are more and more confirmations, a real avalanche of them, in fact.

Only the least educated person, or the most brainwashed, could still hang on to anything that purport to discredit the theory.

Again Darwin does notnegte the possibility of a god, just that evolution can be explained in scientific terms. ID, on the other hand, to cover the insecurity of theits, tries to pass itself of as science to support the weakening creationist notion. ID, is a subterfge, a cheat, by ignorant, one-sided mind, or luddites type, people. It has no prerogative, no usefulness, and is just a danger if it could ever gain a foot hold in the scientific community which it has no chance of doing, imo, since that would be so retrograde as to stretch the concept of human stupidity beyond the possible.

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

I can tell you are getting serious now, with all the spelling mistakes you must be typing very quickly.

That aside, in the last 150 years, what evidences from fossil records have supported Darwins claims? Well if there is an avalanche of them this should be an easy task...

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

Umm yeah you are-
there is plenty of evidence of intemediary steps within the fossil record. Darwin didn't say that you had to find everyone to be true, he said that if NONE wer found then he was likely wrong.
Additionally evolutions as a thoery has been refined by new evidence- firstly the concept of punctuated equilibrium which allows for large scale changes to happen over relatively short periods of time. Secondly computer simulations (amuong other evidence) have shown that complexorgans do not have to go through all intermediary steps to finish at such an advangted stage.

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

nuh uhh, someone just glued them together like that

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

[ QUOTE ]

The world is flat.


[/ QUOTE ]

It IS flat. It's also round. It's also a sphere. It doesn't move. It rotates around its axis and revolves around the sun.

None of the above statements contradict each other.

Re: Is Darwin dead...
 

The spelling mistakes are due to a certain lassitude I experience with your posts.

This due to the fact that they monotonously re-iterate what your beliefs are. We know them by now, please enter a debate or desist fromm repetitive posts that offer nothing new.

2+2 is a generally more interesting forum than most others available on the net. One reason is the intolerance displayed by the moderators and readers to those who post without having done a search on previous posts. Rarely, have you made a post that had new quality or information in it. Given the existence of previous posts about the subject of your posts. Your posts are much more superficial and have already very adequately been answered. As you would know if you could bother to read what have been said on the subject rather than re-iterating the same very undevelopped platitudes. I don't know how much longer you will be able to do so, even, where OOT is probably the most tolerant of the 2+2 forums when it comes to repeating the same questions. Don't forget, it is rude not to read up on previous debates on a subject, it is rude to say the same thing over and aver again with no new angles, as it diminishes the signal/noise ratio of the forum. It is a form of childish self-centeredness. Seeing one self as the center of the universe (quite in line with you faith position btw).

I will attempt for the last time to explain what you are doing.

Due to your own insecurity in your faith, and the fact that insecurity and faith go hand in hand since faith is not rational and is well recognised as such by those intelligent people of faith, you have a need to get confirmation from others of your own discoveries/insight/irrational (I am being very kind) acceptances .

Evolution does not deny the existence of god or not. It just say that biological development is possible within proven, proveable and remarkably testable and contantly tested discoveries. It takes no position re pre big bang or... regarding a prime cause etc...

ID on the other hand is properly a fraud which try to accapare the mantle of science without giving any deference to the mechanisms that make science what it is.

I suggest you take your insecurity to another forum, but, in any case, read a bit more of 2+2 before you continue posting in the way you are. You certainly are not doing your cause any justice, but beyond that, you are degrading the content of this forum.