[_ Old Earth _] 'Pull the plug on the Darwin Delusion'

[MrVersatile48]

- says emeritus professor:-

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/r ... 07#1462999

 

[jwu]

From the linked article:

According to Dr. John A. Davidson, emeritus experimental researcher in biology, Darwinism "has failed to survive the acid test of experimental verification" and is finished as a theory. How so? In Dr. Davidson's words, "It is now 147 years since the publication of Darwin's celebrated 'On the Origin of Species,' yet not a single species has been observed to be formed through the mechanism he proposed. That mechanism, the natural selection of randomly produced variations is apparently incompetent to transform contemporary species even into a new member of the same genus. The most intensive artificial selection has also proven to be unable to transcend the species barrier."

Do i really need to look up the list of observed speciation events again?
And in regards to the bolded section, the emergence of new genera has been directly observed as well.

As I recall from my graduate radiobiology class, after zillions of generations of radiation-induced mutations on drosophila (the common fruit fly), three things resulted: deformed flies, unchanged flies , and dead flies. What was never observed was a bee, wasp, or sparrow. You're right, Dr. Davidson, the time to put Darwin's fanciful tale to rest is way past due.

Oh my....this is just pathetic. If that were to happen - flies changing into wasps or sparrows, then this would actually falsify evolution, as it does not propose that such a thing should happen.

 

[blunthitta4life]

A legitimate scientist wouldn't refer to evolution as darwinism just to let you know.

 

[Barbarian]

Our bumptious professor seems completely unaware that even most creationists now admit the evolution of new species. Some, like the Institute for Creation Research, go a lot farther.

They endorse Woodmorrape's thesis that new genera and even new families can evolve.

 

[Guest]

creationism is a theory , evolution is proven fact

 

[Orion]

And replies like these make me wonder how many "former Christians" there are out in the world. Some of you may be able to retain your faith AND still believe that we evolved from lower lifeforms, . . . but many Christians would see that contradiction from the Bible and walk away.

 

[jwu]

Most of those who turn their back on Christianity are former young earth creationists though - people who were taught Biblical literalism, that the whole Bible is wrong if one specific part isn't accurate history when interpreted literally.

Read their testimonies - in many cases it is the feeling of having been lied to [even though this may have been genuine mistakes by people who didn't know better either] is what turns them away from Christianity.

 

[JohnR]

people who were taught Biblical literalism

There is nothing wrong with "literalism". The problem is when man made traditions and some of the traditional interpretations. Jesus warns us to be careful of the traditions of man. We have new discoverys that help us to better understand the Bible, but those new discoverys in science also help us to see that some of our traditional interpretations were not always accurate.

The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve lived in the Garden in the Land of Eden 6,000 years ago. While science can confirm the Bible and tells us that the Hebrew people did have a common ancestor that lived in the middle east 6,000 years ago. Science also tells us about a lot of stuff that we do not read about in our Bible. Science does not contradict the Bible, science just gives us information the Bible does not give us.

It could be that we are not going to get every little detail figured out. We do know that the people we read about in our Bible are real, historical people. We know the Bible is literal, historical and accurate.

Luke 3:23-38
Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, [24] the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, [25] the son of Mattathiah, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, [26] the son of Maath, the son of Mattathiah, the son of Semei, the son of Joseph, the son of Judah, [27] the son of Joannas, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, [28] the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmodam, the son of Er, [29] the son of Jose, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, [30] the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonan, the son of Eliakim, [31] the son of Melea, the son of Menan, the son of Mattathah, the son of Nathan, the son of David, [32] the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, [33] the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, [34] the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, [35] the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, [36] the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, [37] the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, [38] the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

 

[LittleNipper]

There is nothing wrong with "literalism". The problem is when man made traditions and some of the traditional interpretations. Jesus warns us to be careful of the traditions of man. We have new discoverys that help us to better understand the Bible, but those new discoverys in science also help us to see that some of our traditional interpretations were not always accurate.

The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve lived in the Garden in the Land of Eden 6,000 years ago. While science can confirm the Bible and tells us that the Hebrew people did have a common ancestor that lived in the middle east 6,000 years ago. Science also tells us about a lot of stuff that we do not read about in our Bible. Science does not contradict the Bible, science just gives us information the Bible does not give us.

It could be that we are not going to get every little detail figured out. We do know that the people we read about in our Bible are real, historical people. We know the Bible is literal, historical and accurate.

Luke 3:23-38
Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, [24] the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, [25] the son of Mattathiah, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, [26] the son of Maath, the son of Mattathiah, the son of Semei, the son of Joseph, the son of Judah, [27] the son of Joannas, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, [28] the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmodam, the son of Er, [29] the son of Jose, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, [30] the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonan, the son of Eliakim, [31] the son of Melea, the son of Menan, the son of Mattathah, the son of Nathan, the son of David, [32] the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, [33] the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, [34] the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, [35] the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, [36] the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, [37] the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, [38] the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Might EVOLUTION be built on manmade TRADITION?

 

[blunthitta4life]

If science is a tradition, then yes.

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

Evolution is not a fact, its just presented as a fact even though its called a theory! Gotcha!

 

[JohnR]

Evolution is not a fact, its just presented as a fact even though its called a theory!

It is a theory that tries to explain the facts. It is a fact that Darwin's finches have different sized beaks. Darwin's theory tries to explain why they have different sized beaks.

 

[JohnR]

Evolution is not a fact, its just presented as a fact even though its called a theory!

It is a theory that tries to explain the facts. It is a fact that Darwin's finches have different sized beaks. Darwin's theory tries to explain why they have different sized beaks.

 

[LittleNipper]

It is a theory that tries to explain the facts. It is a fact that Darwin's finches have different sized beaks. Darwin's theory tries to explain why they have different sized beaks.

Have you ever looked at the different noses humans have? It was once thought by evolutionists that "Darwin's finches" were different species. That "fact" was proven false when a typhoon decimated the finch population. It was found that the various finches left were "pairing off". They had not evolved. They were varieties only.... The big beaks were happy with the small beaks and visa versa....

 

[Slevin]

Have you ever looked at the different noses humans have? It was once thought by evolutionists that "Darwin's finches" were different species. That "fact" was proven false when a typhoon decimated the finch population. It was found that the various finches left were "pairing off". They had not evolved. They were varieties only.... The big beaks were happy with the small beaks and visa versa....

Variation is evolution, n00b. Stop being semantically fallacious

 

[LittleNipper]

Variation is evolution, n00b. Stop being semantically fallacious

Variation means only that no two are alike. Evolution means that all variation emerged from one. Your the one being fallacious. I never said you looked exactly liked your grandfather, but evolutionists believe our ancestors were but single celled organisms.....

 

[blunthitta4life]

Variation means only that no two are alike. Evolution means that all variation emerged from one. Your the one being fallacious. I never said you looked exactly liked your grandfather, but evolutionists believe our ancestors were but single celled organisms.....

You make it sound so simple though. And actually evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population. Variation is the physical changes we see.

 

[Slevin]

Variation means only that no two are alike. Evolution means that all variation emerged from one. Your the one being fallacious. I never said you looked exactly liked your grandfather, but evolutionists believe our ancestors were but single celled organisms.....

Variation is a consequence of the mechanisms of evolution. The extrapolation that if we are related to our parents, and all other humans through our genetics, and we are genetically related to other primates, which are genetically related to other mammals, which are genetically related to other animals, which are genetically related to all life is a major tenet of evolution, yes. But it's not so parsimonious, unlike what you put.

 

[LittleNipper]

Variation is a consequence of the mechanisms of evolution. The extrapolation that if we are related to our parents, and all other humans through our genetics, and we are genetically related to other primates, which are genetically related to other mammals, which are genetically related to other animals, which are genetically related to all life is a major tenet of evolution, yes. But it's not so parsimonious, unlike what you put.

Any "Christian" should realize that all living things are related. They were all created by the very same TRINITY. The ignorance arises when one believes that one's ancestors sprang from creatures with 4 legs and birds from dragons. If evolution meant nothing but variations within kinds and the GOD given abilities for each kind to cope with environmental changes, then there would be no argument.... BUT, then all evolutionists would have to believe in GOD. ALL Christians already do.....

 

[blunthitta4life]

Any "Christian" should realize that all living things are related. They were all created by the very same TRINITY. The ignorance arises when one believes that one's ancestors sprang from creatures with 4 legs and birds from dragons. If evolution meant nothing but variations within kinds and the GOD given abilities for each kind to cope with environmental changes, then there would be no argument.... [quote:4852f]BUT, then all evolutionists would have to believe in GOD. ALL Christians already do.....

All I'm hearing is that "I don't care enough to actually learn about evolution because it goes against my interpretation of the bible."

The ignorance arises when one believes that one's ancestors sprang from creatures with 4 legs and birds from dragons.

Actually ignorance arises from statements like this. Our ancestors didn't "spring" from creatures with 4 legs, we share a common ancestor. I didn't realize dragons were real? Do these dragons breathe fire and kidnap damsels?

BUT, then all evolutionists would have to believe in GOD. ALL Christians already do.....

[/quote:4852f]

There is the kicker... you feel threatened by evolution because you feel it is "Godless" and if correct it throws a literal interpretation the bible out.