Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-30-2005, 08:40 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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 Darwinís 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 Haeckelís 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 wasnít 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 earthís atmosphere. If you do Millerís experiment today with a more accurate simulation, the result is formaldehyde and cyanide and certainly not amino acids.

Darwinís 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 Haeckelís 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 Haeckelís 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 Darwinís 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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-30-2005, 09:31 AM
diebitter diebitter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 417
Default Re: Is Darwin dead...

Yes, he's dead. Idiocy thrives though.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-30-2005, 10:15 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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]
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-30-2005, 10:22 AM
hmkpoker hmkpoker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 116
Default Re: Is Darwin dead...

I liked godBoy better when his name was txag007
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-30-2005, 10:56 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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]
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-30-2005, 11:07 AM
hmkpoker hmkpoker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 116
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-30-2005, 11:12 AM
Lestat Lestat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 383
Default Re: Is Darwin dead...

Just curious... How old do you think the earth is, godBoy?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-30-2005, 04:35 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Is Darwin dead...

Since this is a passage from someone else's work you really should give a citation.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-30-2005, 04:55 PM
hmkpoker hmkpoker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 116
Default Re: Is Darwin dead...

Google give us this:

http://www.christianbooksummaries.co...hp?v=3&i=6
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-30-2005, 05:56 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.