• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] NEW anoucement evolutionists reject darwins thoery

  • Thread starter Thread starter willow the wip
  • Start date Start date
W

willow the wip

Guest
NEW anoucement evolutionists reject darwins thoery new theory of evolution out


http://www.nu-news.com/news/2003/02/26/ ... 9570.shtml

Methodical Naturalism new evolutionary theory?

Human Evolution

... 23. The Multi-Habitat Hypothesis of Human Evolution. A new theory of human evolution


http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropol ... romhh.html

http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.120 ... ookieSet=1

http://economics.designerz.com/economic ... nomics.php

http://www.pr.mq.edu.au/macnews/ShowItem.asp?ItemID=37

A contagious new evolutionary theory

By day Philip Bell researches yeast at Macquarie University, but by night - for the past 10 years - he's been refining a radical new evolutionary theory that could lead to a complete rethink on how humans and other complex life forms evolved on Earth.

http://www.rednova.com/news/stories/2/2 ... ry001.html

A recent plant experiment on the common monkeyflower however suggests that alternations between whether birds or bees might best pollinate future generations has led to new evolutionary proposals: leaps and bounds followed by settling steps that refine the rapid progress.



http://www.irrawaddy.org/aviewer.asp?a=533&z=105

Generals’ New Evolutionary Theory
By The Irrawaddy
May 01, 1998

The regime has reported that a study group was sent to Pon Taung Region, Sagaing Division, in March 1997 to investigate the ancestry of primates. The group was led by Lt.Col. Than Htun, temporary head of Military Strategic Study of the Defence Ministry. Two academics, Dr. Tin Thein and Dr. Aye Ko Aung accompanied him. This trip was made following the instructions of Secretary One, General Khin Nyunt. During their study trip, they declared that they had found the bones of primates as well as the fossils of the mammalian family, such as elephants, mammoths and pigs. They also stated that the fossils and the bones of the primates were 40 million years old.

Secretary One Khin Nyunt subsequently gave a speech in Rangoon on 11 May 1997. He claimed that these findings were proof that the beginning of human life and civilization began in Burma. These claims were reported in the Burmese language New Light of Myanmar on May 12. The report stated that the recent findings illustrated the origins of the great Burmese nationality and the superiority of Burmese culture. The report went on to say that, should the academics be able to obtain proof of this, then Burmese people could definitely say that “Culture began in Myanmar.â€Â

The regime displayed a fossil originally found by academics U Thaw Tin and U Ba Maw in 1978. This fossil came from the same region and might have been a fossil of humans in Nwe Khway village of Chaung Oo Township, Sagaing Division.

In 1978, U Thaw Tin and U Ba Maw had tried to share their findings with the international community, and several foreign journalists had tried to follow up the story. Consequently, U Thaw Tin and U Ba Maw were arrested and the fossils were confiscated by the BSPP. Since that time, nobody knew where these fossils were kept. Khin Nyunt stated they had conserved the fossils in a secure place so they could be studied for the advancement of the people.

In 1923 the fossils of primates had been found in the Pon Taung Region. Even though U Thaw Tin and U Ba Maw found such fossils again in 1978, they had never hypothesised that the human race originated in Myanmar.

In the analysis of the evolution of the biological process, we have to study all living organisms which have originated on earth and have been diversified and modified through sustained changes in form and function. It is unacceptable to make an analysis based on, and influenced by, current political, national or regional territories.

In 1995, some 35 million year old fossils of primates were found in Krabi, Southern Thailand. Following these findings local academics postulated that primates had originated in Asia and, due to climatic changes, had moved to Africa, contrary to the usually accepted theory that the movement had been from Africa to Asia. There is evidence showing that the Anyartharian culture (Stone Age) occurred in Burma and Thailand, but these were no Homo sapiens; rather, these were Homo erectus. These individuals have been found in most of Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the rest of the world. In Asia, the Chinese and Indian civilisations were the first recorded civilisations  a mere 5,000 years ago. Due to recent findings in Thailand of human bones and everyday items, we can date human civilisation in this country to 4,000 years ago.

The first civilisation in Burma was in Pyu, dated approximately 2,000 years ago, when there were isolated city states: Mai Maw, close to Ku Mer (200BC); Pitthanoe, close to Taung Twingyi (100AD); Han Lin, close to Wet Lat (300AD); Wessali, close to Myuat U (800AD); and Pagan (1100AD).

According to evidence in our country’s history, we can say the people of Burma originated 2,000 years ago. At that time, there were very developed civilisations to the west in India and to the east in China. It is thought that people from Tibet and Yunnan were experiencing an early form of identity. People came from these regions around 3,000 years ago, bringing new cultures, and mixed with the indigenous people developing culture and civilisation. Some 2000 years ago, the Pyu culture was established. There is no earlier evidence before that. They may or may not be the ancestors of the current peoples of Burma. We can only say that there were Pyu people and Pyu culture at that time.

It is academically assumed that the name “Pagan†originated from the Kalar in the Brama region (Indian). It is theorised by Dr. Than Htun that Pyu may well be what is known today as Pagan.

The evolution of primates began about 40 million years ago in the history of 600 million years of evolution. Groups of primates are separated into many kinds with the evolution of the body and then the brain from anthropoids, hominids, through to Homo erectus and on to Homo sapiens. The following summary is nearly universally accepted among academics regarding the evolution of human beings:

1. Australopithecus ramidus, dating from 4.4 million years ago;

2. Australopithecusafarensis, dating from 3.9 million years ago (starting to walk upright);

3. Australopithecus africanus, dating from 3 million years ago;

4. Australopithecus robustus, dating from 2 million years ago;

5. Homo habilis, dating from between 2 million and 1.3 million years ago;

6. Homo erectus, dating from between 1.3 million and 300,000 years ago;

7. Homo sapiens, dating from about 300,000 years ago.

In 1974, Australipithecus africanus was found in the Hadar region of Ethiopia and was given the name “Lucyâ€Â; some academics suggest that modern humans evolved directly from Lucy. In 1994, an upper jaw was found in the Hadar area. When the jaw was studied, it was found to be of the Homo group, so some academics postulate that Lucy first evolved directly into Homo erectus and then into Homo sapiens. Homo erectus was very close to modern human beings; they used stone weapons and were thus known as the “stone age†people. Java people, Peking people, Neanderthal people, Cromagnan people, Anyarthar people of Central Burma and the people who lived in Burma’s Byadalin cave about 11,000 years ago were Homo erectus. The DNA of the Neanderthal is very different from the DNA of Homo sapiens. Some theorise that Homo sapiens were contemporaries of Neanderthal man around 300,000 years ago. Most academics believe that Homo sapiens moved from Africa to the Middle East, Europe and Asia, and that 4,000 years ago one group separated and moved to the American continent. These theories have been formulated from available evidence but there are also some academics who believe that Homo sapiens existed all over the world at the same time.

Today, people of the world are Homo sapiens, whatever their colour, culture, or language, whether or not they are modernised or pre-modern, live in the mountains, the plains , the delta, deserts, or islands. All are Homo sapiens, all are human beings.

Homo sapiens have developed from small scale societies to societies with complex divisions of labour. They have learnt to be productive and, as productivity increased beyond self-sustainability, it is thought that contacts and relationships developed. “Civilisations†started to emerge with different cultures, systems, relationships and leaders. Rulers and the ruled emerged. This is the history of the development of human “civilisation.â€Â

Originally, there were no nations, no boundaries, no nationalities, but as humans developed, their form of community changed. With the changes from small self-sustainable communities to eras dependent on slave labour, feudal periods and capitalism, nations and nationalism emerged. At the beginning of human “civilisation,†there were no mapped boundaries. Because of changes in productivity, relations and systems, nationalism gained ground and developed into its present structure.

There is evidence showing that the first “civilisation†began in Egypt and the Middle East, spreading its influence to the surrounding areas. Languages and cultures diversified as they spread to different areas and then developed their own identities, so we cannot specify any one root from which all culture developed. Some occurred, and later completely disappeared; some developed, changed and influenced other cultural growth, making new dynamic cultures. Countries emerged, some adapted to change and others did not.

There are many conflicts in societies in the world; political, economic and social activities must address these problems. All problems are integrated globally. All countries are interdependent; no country is totally separate; no problem can be solved individually. In the contemporary world, no country can isolate itself and survive. Burma is not only part of the world, but also part of the humanity. We cannot separate ourselves from the world. We have to deal with other countries, other peoples, other cultures, and we have to develop ourselves. Our culture may spread to others, and theirs may spread to us, so that cultures can merge and develop again.

Now, the regime has spoken alot about the 1997 Pon Taung investigation in their propaganda, even though there have been no new findings in this region. The victories of the Tatmadaw-led investigation are being propounded. General Khin Nyunt is shouting out that human beings and culture originated from Myanmar (Burma).

It is well known that there is no academic freedom in Burma. It is known that the regime has previously coerced academics into writing history as they want it recorded. They are trying to instill blind patriotism among the people.

General Khin Nyunt and his colleagues have been working very hard in Pon Taung region to propound a new evolutionary theory which no one can accept.

Contributed by Win Thein, based in Thailand.
 
The first is just someone in Chicago saying we have to 'open our minds' to the possibility of intelligent design. :roll:

The second is geocities, and no one touches geocities.
The third requires a cookie.
The fourth is an economics website. Nothing to do with biology.
The fifth is about an idea that the nucleus is from viral symbiosis millions of years ago.

The sixth is about some news in the science of evolution, from a year ago. I thought you said this was 'new.'

And the seventh is just some dictator with a nationalist bent saying that humanity came from his nation's people and that all others are inferior.
 
Dr Paul Nelson is not just a somebody from Chicago.

This man is an evolutionist so he is not a Just somebody.

pnelson.jpg


Paul A. Nelson received his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago Department of Philosophy. His thesis critiques aspects of macroevolutionary theory in light of recent developments in embryology and developmental biology. Entitled On Common Descent, it will be published in the University of Chicago Department of Ecology and Evolution's "Evolutionary Monographs" series (and the first in this prestigious series to critique neo-Darwinism). He is currently collaborating with Stephen Meyer and William Dembski on a book formulating a scientific theory of biological design. He has written several articles on the philosophical aspects of evolutionary biology including one recently published in Biology and Philosophy. He edits the journal Origins & Design.

this is like some one saying that Albert Einstein was just somebody from Ulm in Austria.
 
And Dr. Nelson is certainly not rejecting evolution, by any stretch of the imagination. A quote from your first link confirms this.

Dr. Nelson, a specialist in evolutionary developmental biology and a member of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID) urged audience members not to forsake the idea of evolution or natural selection, but to also consider the idea that life could have been intelligently designed
 
yes i know he dose not what i am saying is he is rejecting darwinism not evolution.

You see darwin never invented evolution, the theory exsisted long before darwin.
 
willow the wip said:
yes i know he dose not what i am saying is he is rejecting darwinism not evolution.

You see darwin never invented evolution, the theory exsisted long before darwin.
Not much longer before, there was a claim that a merchant in scotland made a similar theory but put it in as some footnote in an obscure journal a few years before Darwin presented any findings.

Darwinism IS evolution by natural selection so no he is not rejecting darwinism.
Your entire post contains no one who is actually rejecting darwinian evolution.
 
yes i know he dose not what i am saying is he is rejecting darwinism not evolution.

You see darwin never invented evolution, the theory exsisted long before darwin.

I don't think any modern biologist believes in Darwinism anymore, but new-Darwinism
 
keebs thats exaclty what i am trying to say old darwinism has been rejected by modern day evolutionists.
 
willow the wip said:
keebs thats exaclty what i am trying to say old darwinism has been rejected by modern day evolutionists.

And Newtonian physics have been replaced by Einsteinian physics.

So what? That does not detract from the contributions that Newton made to the field.

Nor does the evolution (pun intended) of Darwin's theories to their present status detract from Darwin's contribution.
 
well for one speak to any modern day evolutionists they will tell you they no longer use darwin.

yes newtons theorys have replaced Einsteinian.

the big deal is no one in education no longer use darwin here in the UK it is rejected we have our new theorys.
 
to say it is imparitive that one should believe in darwin would suggest darwinism has now become a religion and not science anymore if you denigh it your a lier.
 
willow the wip said:
to say it is imparitive that one should believe in darwin would suggest darwinism has now become a religion and not science anymore if you denigh it your a lier.
The problem here is that most of the theory that Darwin formulated still holds true.
Most of what has been discovered in recent times regarding biology has either confirmed his theory or enhanced it.

To "believe" the ToE requires "belief" in Darwinism. To deny that is to deny the core of the ToE.
To make a comparison... To "believe" in Christianity is to "believe" in Judaism. To deny that is to deny the major part of Christianity.

Remember, the current ToE is built on Darwinism, not replacing it. Just like Christianity is built on Judaism...



Due to the constant scientific work being conducted on the ToE, it is incorrect to claim that Darwinism is a religion as it still forms much of the current ToE.

Now, the zeal with which some people defend it... That's a different matter.
 
8-) Do you never learn?
Darwin didn't come up with TOE,the ancient pagans did.
Henry Morris tells the truth about the whole thing as do so
many other well respected researchers. TOE is ancient!
Darwin has been refuted,and thats old news already,amen.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-234.htm
 
:smt006 I have come here to celebrate Jesus Christ and the Gospel
of his name!!!
I will exalt his name. Jesus Christ is Lord!
No one has the right to call God into question.
"Do all to the Glory of God!" Do you get it?
I will exalt his name!
Lord Jesus,Oh' My precious God!
The bottom line folly of the secular mind: "I have rights".
Umm.....Well,no you don't.
Taste and see that the Lord is good.
 
The problem here is that most of the theory that Darwin formulated still holds true.
Most of what has been discovered in recent times regarding biology has either confirmed his theory or enhanced it.

A theory is a theory not based on fact.

If it was a fact it would not be a theory theirfore darwinism is a religion.

http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro15.html

The Religion of Nature: Social Darwinism
by David N. Menton, Ph.D.

It has been said that no book, other than the Bible, has had a greater affect on society than Darwin's On the Origin of Species. Evolutionist Steven Jay Gould, wrote that following the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859, "subsequent arguments for slavery, colonialism, racial differences, class structures, and sex roles would go forth primarily under the banner of science" (The Mismeasure of Man, W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 1981, p. 72). Darwin himself seemed to approve of the application of his evolutionary ideas to moral and social issues. In a letter to H. Thiel in 1869, Darwin said:

"You will really believe how much interested I am in observing that you apply to moral and social questions analogous views to those which I have used in regard to the modification of species. It did not occur to me formerly that my views could be extended to such widely different and most important subjects." (The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Francis Darwin editor, D. Appleton and Co., 1896, Vol. 2, p . 294).
 
A theory is a theory not based on fact.

You are confusing definitions and words. You are describing a conjecture, a theory is a proven conjecture. However, even most conjectures are based on facts of some sort.
 
keebs said:
A theory is a theory not based on fact.

You are confusing definitions and words. You are describing a conjecture, a theory is a proven conjecture. However, even most conjectures are based on facts of some sort.

Here is webster definition of a theory for you all.

www.w-m.com said:
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

keebs please point out to me in the definition that a theory is proven. I've pointed out that Webster even says a theory is unproven. And just to argue that you said conjecture, not assumption, here's what webster thesuarus had to say about the word assumption.

www.w-m.com said:
Entry Word: assumption
Function: noun
Text: 1
Synonyms PRESUPPOSITION, presumption
2 something that is taken for granted or advanced as fact <decisions based on assumptions about the nature of society>
Synonyms apriorism, posit, postulate, postulation, premise, presumption, presupposition, supposition, thesis
Related Word conjecture, guess, surmise; hypothesis, theory; axiom, fundamental, law, principle, theorem
 
Brutus/HisCatalyst said:
keebs said:
A theory is a theory not based on fact.

You are confusing definitions and words. You are describing a conjecture, a theory is a proven conjecture. However, even most conjectures are based on facts of some sort.

Here is webster definition of a theory for you all.

www.w-m.com said:
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

keebs please point out to me in the definition that a theory is proven. I've pointed out that Webster even says a theory is unproven. And just to argue that you said conjecture, not assumption, here's what webster thesuarus had to say about the word assumption.

www.w-m.com said:
Entry Word: assumption
Function: noun
Text: 1
Synonyms PRESUPPOSITION, presumption
2 something that is taken for granted or advanced as fact <decisions based on assumptions about the nature of society>
Synonyms apriorism, posit, postulate, postulation, premise, presumption, presupposition, supposition, thesis
Related Word conjecture, guess, surmise; hypothesis, theory; axiom, fundamental, law, principle, theorem


The scientific definition of theory is this:

Theory: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>

What I think keebs meant by "proven conjecture", is that it's not mere conjecture. A scientific theory is beyond conjecture due to the amount of evidence and corroboration that the theory has. Your definitions you provided are right, theories are those definitions. But a Scientific Theory only fit one of those definitions.
 
You are confusing definitions and words. You are describing a conjecture, a theory is a proven conjecture. However, even most conjectures are based on facts of some sort.

If darwin is factual why are evolutionist scientists now saying that their are missing links in darwins theorys.

this new theory they say they can prove as fact.

I personally believe that a theory is a theory and a fact is a fact you see we need to be able to seperate a truth from a fable.

By the deffinission of light a theory only explaines why light works and not how their is no psyical evedence behind these,

such as the new string theory that is a theory to disprove einstines theory of relitivity.

or the new theory behind time and space this has just been spoken about by professer steven hawkin.

dosent mean to say its fact eather these are just theorys if it was a fact it would not be a theory.

If i was to say that i will drop a feather and a ball then we can determinate graverty.

by the fact that the feather and ball will hit the ground at near enough the same time becouse we can psysically see that graverty works both ways it pushes the feather and ball up wards while at the same time their is greater graverty pushing the ball downwards.

this is a psysical fact.

as darwin is an unproven theory this is why now it is widely been rejected.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/THEORIES.html

Theories versus facts

[Node to be completed]

We distinguish between factual statements and theories. If the path from a statement to verifiable predictions is short and uncontroversial, we call it factual. A theory is a statement which can generate a wide scope of predictions, but only through some intermediate steps, such as reasoning, computation, the use of other statements. Thus the path from a theory to predictions may not be unique and often becomes debatable. Between the extreme cases of statements that are clearly facts and those which are clearly theories there is a whole spectrum of intermediate cases.

Top-level theories of science are not deduced from observable facts; they are constructed by a creative act, and their usefulness can be demonstrated only afterwards. Einstein wrote: "Physics is a developing logical system of thinking whose foundations cannot be obtained by extraction from past experience according to some inductive methods, but come only by free fantasy".

The statement of the truth of a theory has essentially the same meaning as that of a simple factual judgment: we refer to some experience which justifies, or will justify, the decision-making on the basis of this statement. When this experience is in the past we say that the truth is established. When it is expected in the future we say it is hypothetical. There is no difference of principle between factual statements and theories: both are varieties of models of reality which we use to make decisions. A fact may turn out to be an illusion, or hallucination, or a fraud, or a misconception. On the other side, a well-established theory can be taken for a fact. And we should accept critically both facts and theories, and re-examine them whenever necessary. The differences between facts and theories are only quantitative: the length of the path from the statement to the production of predictions.
 
The Tuatha'an said:
[quote="Brutus/HisCatalyst":df664]
keebs said:
A theory is a theory not based on fact.

You are confusing definitions and words. You are describing a conjecture, a theory is a proven conjecture. However, even most conjectures are based on facts of some sort.

Here is webster definition of a theory for you all.

www.w-m.com said:
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

keebs please point out to me in the definition that a theory is proven. I've pointed out that Webster even says a theory is unproven. And just to argue that you said conjecture, not assumption, here's what webster thesuarus had to say about the word assumption.

www.w-m.com said:
Entry Word: assumption
Function: noun
Text: 1
Synonyms PRESUPPOSITION, presumption
2 something that is taken for granted or advanced as fact <decisions based on assumptions about the nature of society>
Synonyms apriorism, posit, postulate, postulation, premise, presumption, presupposition, supposition, thesis
Related Word conjecture, guess, surmise; hypothesis, theory; axiom, fundamental, law, principle, theorem


The scientific definition of theory is this:

Theory: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>

What I think keebs meant by "proven conjecture", is that it's not mere conjecture. A scientific theory is beyond conjecture due to the amount of evidence and corroboration that the theory has. Your definitions you provided are right, theories are those definitions. But a Scientific Theory only fit one of those definitions.
[/quote:df664]

Again, Tua, your calmness and honesty are helping your case better than some of your friends' tempers. Remember to treat all of us in the same manner. While the scientific definition suggests more credibility than that of webster, it still only suggests that a theory is not complete truth.
 
Back
Top