Atheism
- Thread starter Ansar Al-'Adl
- Start date
- Replies 1K
- Views 161K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
- Status
root
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,348
- Reaction score
- 73
And then darwin went on to say:
The two first heads shall be here discussed Instinct and Hybridism in separate chapters.
On the absence or rarity of transitional varieties. As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent or other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection will, as we have seen, go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form.
But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be much more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed; the imperfection of the record being chiefly due to organic beings not inhabiting profound depths of the sea, and to their remains being embedded and preserved to a future age only in masses of sediment sufficiently thick and extensive to withstand an enormous amount of future degradation; and such fossiliferous masses can be accumulated only where much sediment is deposited on the shallow bed of the sea, whilst it slowly subsides. These contingencies will concur only rarely, and after enormously long intervals. Whilst the bed of the sea is stationary or is rising, or when very little sediment is being deposited, there will be blanks in our geological history. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been made only at intervals of time immensely remote.
To be honest I think you should have taken the advice of the author of the below words because I think you have done a "cut n paste job" without considering what you are indeed saying. All you have done here is to show deciet. Within the origin of species (Chapter 6) Darwin begins by presenting criticism for his own theory then goes onto answering this criticism. By simply presenting the criticism and then neglecting Darwins answers to his criticism is misleading to say the least.
Why don't you take the advice of the original author of your words. here is the chapter in full:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html
Do you think the validity of a book be judged by it's price?
I agree, Darwins theory was a major change from accepted mainstream thoughts accounting for how species came to be. Does that then mean it was wrong!
Why don't you read it then.
That is a prity poor assumption.
"if"........
Yes, many people find peace in faith.
Do you mean like modern Gentecs?
And quite right to. The theory of evolution does not and never did seek the origins of the first living matter. Evolution is not interested how life started that is the theory of abiogenesis (how many times do I have to say that)!
Wrong theory (again).
I will.
What do you mean "where when and who took the first steps" exactly.
It says no such thing actually. Please check the definition for "evolution" and you will see you error.
hhhmmm, this is a fallacy. ALL life for example share the same genetic moleculor clock which is one of many examples of similarity. We are all made of the same atoms too. All life and non life matter are constructed of the same atoms.
I agree 100%. and I wish it was buried but people still go on (just like you) and consistently fail to grasp the definition of evolution in that it never did and never has attempted to describe how life came from non-living life. That is a different theory. Louis Pastuer's research has been a waste of time attempting to disprove what was clearly never claimed in the first place.
I would prefer you firmiliarise yourself to what the definition of evolution actually is first!
Never mind logic, I would prefer you to come up with the "basics" of evolution first!
Darwin studied for the priesthood, but moved away from any belief in real organised religion. He kept those views quiet because it was dangerous to be an atheist in public and because his wife was pious and it upset her.
And Darwin did, most definitely, believe in the theory of evolution. Read his works.
root
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,348
- Reaction score
- 73
Logic does not count for much at this point. Allow me to explain, if we want to logically discuss evolution let us first define it:
The change in allele frequency in a population over time
Where in this statement does it state life from non-life? We cannot begin to look at something "logically" if you don't even start from the correct perspective.
root
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,348
- Reaction score
- 73
This is another misleading statement. Cockroaches are one of the oldest (and most succesful) species in the insect world and it's no surprise that some species have not changed in all that time. We also have an abundent of cockroaches that have diversified into other niche environments and differ quite vastly from the fossils which shows that diversification is real.
Far from refuting the theory of evolution it actually supports it.........
root
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,348
- Reaction score
- 73
The coelacanth,
The modern coelacanth is Latimeria chalumnae, in the family Latimeriidae. Fossil coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae, and are significantly different in that they are smaller and lack certain internal structures. Latimeria has no fossil record, so it cannot be a "living fossil."
Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically.
Coelacanths have primitive features relative to most other fish, so at one time they were one of the closest known specimens to the fish-tetrapod transition. We now know several other fossils that show the fish-tetrapod transition quite well.
The modern coelacanth is Latimeria chalumnae, in the family Latimeriidae. Fossil coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae, and are significantly different in that they are smaller and lack certain internal structures. Latimeria has no fossil record, so it cannot be a "living fossil."
Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically.
Coelacanths have primitive features relative to most other fish, so at one time they were one of the closest known specimens to the fish-tetrapod transition. We now know several other fossils that show the fish-tetrapod transition quite well.
czgibson
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 3,234
- Reaction score
- 481
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Atheism
Greetings,
Obviously you weren't sufficiently shocked to the point where you actually would go back and read!
As I said, the scientific community really needs to be informed of this. Sadly, your hack-job extracts from Darwin will convince nobody who is familiar with reading. The quotes you've given show doubts and difficulties that Darwin faced, but they in no way amount to the claim that he didn't believe his own theory!
The reason why everyone is so "blind" to this idea of yours (if indeed you are the originator of this idea, which I highly doubt) is because it is simply nonsensical, as others in this thread have tried to show you.
It would be a good start, and I echo HeiGou when I say "Please do!"
If you're not familiar with logic, just send me a PM and I can point you in the direction of some good introductions to it.
False dilemma. As far as this debate goes, I know whose side Darwin would be on.
People believed that up until the 17th century. Darwin lived during the 19th century.
If you read it you'll find out that that claim is false.
I take it you've never heard about the many debates that take place among evolutionary biologists?
That's called Pascal's Wager. It's quite an old idea.
Do you only believe in god because you want to be rewarded? What kind of faith is that?
Well, I'm glad it's brought you happiness.
Correct, because, as has been pointed out hundreds of times before, that has nothing to do with evolution. Abiogenesis is the area you're thinking of.
Correct. This means that god's creation of the universe has no scientific support, doesn't it?
Have you talked to any geologists lately?
Most of this is to do with abiogenesis, not evolution. The part that could be related to evolution is the third paragraph, but your use of the word "coninsidently" shows that you're not talking about evolution as currently understood by biologists.
It takes quite some time to untangle so many misconceptions! I've also deliberately left out the ones that have been covered by others!
Why the hostility to reading our posts? What's wrong with them?
Peace
Obviously you weren't sufficiently shocked to the point where you actually would go back and read!
As I said, the scientific community really needs to be informed of this. Sadly, your hack-job extracts from Darwin will convince nobody who is familiar with reading. The quotes you've given show doubts and difficulties that Darwin faced, but they in no way amount to the claim that he didn't believe his own theory!
The reason why everyone is so "blind" to this idea of yours (if indeed you are the originator of this idea, which I highly doubt) is because it is simply nonsensical, as others in this thread have tried to show you.
It would be a good start, and I echo HeiGou when I say "Please do!"
If you're not familiar with logic, just send me a PM and I can point you in the direction of some good introductions to it.
False dilemma. As far as this debate goes, I know whose side Darwin would be on.
People believed that up until the 17th century. Darwin lived during the 19th century.
If you read it you'll find out that that claim is false.
I take it you've never heard about the many debates that take place among evolutionary biologists?
That's called Pascal's Wager. It's quite an old idea.
Do you only believe in god because you want to be rewarded? What kind of faith is that?
Well, I'm glad it's brought you happiness.
Correct, because, as has been pointed out hundreds of times before, that has nothing to do with evolution. Abiogenesis is the area you're thinking of.
Correct. This means that god's creation of the universe has no scientific support, doesn't it?
Have you talked to any geologists lately?
Most of this is to do with abiogenesis, not evolution. The part that could be related to evolution is the third paragraph, but your use of the word "coninsidently" shows that you're not talking about evolution as currently understood by biologists.
It takes quite some time to untangle so many misconceptions! I've also deliberately left out the ones that have been covered by others!
Why the hostility to reading our posts? What's wrong with them?
Peace
Muhammad Waqqas
Senior Member
- Messages
- 86
- Reaction score
- 6
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Oh no I'm scared :-\
----
Because you know, this is not such a difficult question to ask. If you really are indoubt that it is copied, simply try googling it. End of the story?
----
Now if you JUST ONCE read the lame logics he has provided, you'll realize theses people are not worth debating with. Even if my grandma would have read, even she would have realized it.
Next, he quotes my post, which I extracted from "Origion of species" and writes down under it: "Because we do."
Imagin, Darwin said something, and here we have another person contradicting with what he said.. Darwin is not agreeing, this ultra-special guy is here telling us what darwin "Really" meant.
Next, again, what darwin could not realize him self, he is here to explain for us that same thing, again and again, the same thing..
This one-line reply is sufficient to reply all of your tale of 5-generations:
WE ARE SAYING, THAT DARWIN DID NOT AGREE WITH HIS OWN THEORY, WE DON'T WANT YOU TO JUSTIFY THE PROBLEMS OF THE THEORY FOR US.
What confuses you athiests so much?!?
You know, this one really makes me hit my head with the wall..
Who are you trying to fool here? Who? I know there might be some people in the forum who don't know much about this theory, but there are some who do Know about it!
The Techonology in the Eye:
This is another subject that remains unanswered by evolutionary theory. It is
the excellent quality of perception in the eye and the ear.
Before passing on to the subject of the eye, let us briefly answer the
question of how we see. Light rays coming from an object fall oppositely
on the eye's retina. Here, these light rays are transmitted into electric
signals by cells and reach a tiny spot at the back of the brain, the
"Center of Vision." These electric signals are perceived in this center as
an image after a series of processes. With this technical background, let
us do some thinking.
The brain is insulated from light. That means that its inside is completely
dark, and that no light reaches the place where it is located.
Thus, the "center of vision" is never touched by light and may even be
the darkest place you have ever known. However, you observe a luminous,
bright world in this pitch darkness.
The image formed in the eye is so sharp and distinct that even the
technology of the twentieth century has not been able to attain it. For
instance, look at the monitor you are looking at, your hands with which you
are holding the mouse, and then lift your head and look around you. Have you
ever seen such a sharp and distinct image as this one at any other
place? Even the most developed television screen produced by the
greatest television producer in the world cannot provide such a sharp
image for you. This is a three-dimensional, colored, and extremely
This is another subject that remains unanswered by evolutionary theory. It is
the excellent quality of perception in the eye and the ear.
Before passing on to the subject of the eye, let us briefly answer the
question of how we see. Light rays coming from an object fall oppositely
on the eye's retina. Here, these light rays are transmitted into electric
signals by cells and reach a tiny spot at the back of the brain, the
"Center of Vision." These electric signals are perceived in this center as
an image after a series of processes. With this technical background, let
us do some thinking.
The brain is insulated from light. That means that its inside is completely
dark, and that no light reaches the place where it is located.
Thus, the "center of vision" is never touched by light and may even be
the darkest place you have ever known. However, you observe a luminous,
bright world in this pitch darkness.
The image formed in the eye is so sharp and distinct that even the
technology of the twentieth century has not been able to attain it. For
instance, look at the monitor you are looking at, your hands with which you
are holding the mouse, and then lift your head and look around you. Have you
ever seen such a sharp and distinct image as this one at any other
place? Even the most developed television screen produced by the
greatest television producer in the world cannot provide such a sharp
image for you. This is a three-dimensional, colored, and extremely
sharp image. For more than 100 years, thousands of engineers have
been trying to achieve this sharpness. Factories, huge premises were
established, much research has been done, plans and designs have
been made for this purpose. Again, look at a TV screen and the book
you hold in your hands. You will see that there is a big difference in
sharpness and distinction. Moreover, the TV screen shows you a twodimensional image, whereas with your eyes, you watch a three-dimensional perspective with depth.
For many years, tens of thousands of engineers have tried to make
a three-dimensional TV and achieve the vision quality of the eye. Yes,
they have made a three-dimensional television system, but it is not
possible to watch it without putting on special 3-D glasses; moreover,
it is only an artificial three-dimension. The background is more
blurred, the foreground appears like a paper setting. Never has it been
possible to produce a sharp and distinct vision like that of the eye. In
been trying to achieve this sharpness. Factories, huge premises were
established, much research has been done, plans and designs have
been made for this purpose. Again, look at a TV screen and the book
you hold in your hands. You will see that there is a big difference in
sharpness and distinction. Moreover, the TV screen shows you a twodimensional image, whereas with your eyes, you watch a three-dimensional perspective with depth.
For many years, tens of thousands of engineers have tried to make
a three-dimensional TV and achieve the vision quality of the eye. Yes,
they have made a three-dimensional television system, but it is not
possible to watch it without putting on special 3-D glasses; moreover,
it is only an artificial three-dimension. The background is more
blurred, the foreground appears like a paper setting. Never has it been
possible to produce a sharp and distinct vision like that of the eye. In
both the camera and the television, there is a loss of image quality.
Evolutionists and athiests claim that the mechanism producing this sharp and distinct image has been formed by chance. Now, if somebody told you
that the television in your room was formed as a result of chance, that
all of its atoms just happened to come together and make up this device
that produces an image, what would you think? How can atoms
do what thousands of people cannot?
If a device producing a more primitive image than the eye could not
have been formed by chance, then it is very evident that the eye and the
image seen by the eye could not have been formed by chance. The
same situation applies to the ear. The outer ear picks up the available
sounds by the auricle and directs them to the middle ear, the middle
ear transmits the sound vibrations by intensifying them, and the inner
ear sends these vibrations to the brain by translating them into electric
signals. Just as with the eye, the act of hearing finalizes in the center of
hearing in the brain.
Who asked you to clear the problems in the theory for us? We are saying Darwin did not agree. What has your justifucation to do with this concerning topic?
----
WHICH CHRISTIAN, JEWISH AND MUSLIM BIOLOGIST ACCEPTS DARWIN'S THEORY?
I agree that they are taught this theory in books, BUT WHICH BIOLOGISTS ACCEPTS THE THEORY?!! GIVE ME NAME OF ONLY ONE!
Evolutionists and athiests claim that the mechanism producing this sharp and distinct image has been formed by chance. Now, if somebody told you
that the television in your room was formed as a result of chance, that
all of its atoms just happened to come together and make up this device
that produces an image, what would you think? How can atoms
do what thousands of people cannot?
If a device producing a more primitive image than the eye could not
have been formed by chance, then it is very evident that the eye and the
image seen by the eye could not have been formed by chance. The
same situation applies to the ear. The outer ear picks up the available
sounds by the auricle and directs them to the middle ear, the middle
ear transmits the sound vibrations by intensifying them, and the inner
ear sends these vibrations to the brain by translating them into electric
signals. Just as with the eye, the act of hearing finalizes in the center of
hearing in the brain.
Who asked you to clear the problems in the theory for us? We are saying Darwin did not agree. What has your justifucation to do with this concerning topic?
Nice, We will agree with "YOUR OPINION HERE." I already gave the reply in my last post. COMEUP WITH FACTS. NOBODY CARES WHAT YOU THINK. Atleast I don't. Seriously.
Ah...
----
WHICH CHRISTIAN, JEWISH AND MUSLIM BIOLOGIST ACCEPTS DARWIN'S THEORY?
I agree that they are taught this theory in books, BUT WHICH BIOLOGISTS ACCEPTS THE THEORY?!! GIVE ME NAME OF ONLY ONE!
The first evolutionist who took up the subject of the origin of life in the twentieth century was the renowned Russian biologist Alexander Oparin. With various theses he advanced in the 1930s, he tried to prove that a living cell could originate by coincidence. these studies, however, were doomed to failure, and Oparin had to make the following confession:
"Unfortunately, however, the problem of the origin of the cell is perhaps the most obscure point in the whole study of the evolution of organisms." (Alexander I. Oparin, Origin of Life, Dover Publications, New York, 1936, 1953 (reprint), page. 196.)
"Unfortunately, however, the problem of the origin of the cell is perhaps the most obscure point in the whole study of the evolution of organisms." (Alexander I. Oparin, Origin of Life, Dover Publications, New York, 1936, 1953 (reprint), page. 196.)
British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact, even though he is an evolutionist:
"The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another." (Derek Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record", Proceedings of the British Geological Association, vol 87, 1976, page. 133.)
Let's look up the Miller Experiment:
"The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another." (Derek Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record", Proceedings of the British Geological Association, vol 87, 1976, page. 133.)
Let's look up the Miller Experiment:
The best known experiment to prove evolution was carried out by the American chemist Stanley Miller in 1953. Combining the gases he alleged to have existed in the primordial Earth's atmosphere in an experiment set-up, and adding energy to the mixture, Miller synthesized several organic molecules (amino acids) present in the structure of proteins. Barely a few years had passed before it was revealed that this experiment, which was then presented as an important step in the name of evolution, was invalid, for the atmosphere used in the experiment was very different from the real Earth conditions. (For details: "New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life", Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol 63, November 1982, page.1328-1330.)
Miller him self confessed that the atmosphere medium he used was unrealistic: Stanley Miller, Molecular Evolution of Life: Current Status of the Prebiotic Synthesis of Small Molecules, 1986, page. 7.
----
It tells us two things:
At darwin's times, spontaneous generation, which asserts that non-living materials came together to form living organisms, had been widely accepted. It was commonly believed that insects came into being from food leftovers, and mice from wheat. Interesting experiments were conducted to prove this theory. Some wheat was placed on a dirty piece of cloth, and it was believed
that mice would originate from it after a while.
Similarly, maggots developing in rotting meat was assumed to be evidence of spontaneous generation.
Louis Pasteur destroyed the belief that life could be created from inanimate substances. It was later understood that worms did not appear on meat spontaneously, but were carried there by flies in the form of larvae, invisible to the naked eye.
Since Louis Pasteur wrote is book 5 years after darwin, therefore it also proves that at darwin's times, this belief really existed (To which you disagreed above).
More?
Louis Pasteur destroyed the belief that life could be created from inanimate substances. It was later understood that worms did not appear on meat spontaneously, but were carried there by flies in the form of larvae, invisible to the naked eye.
Since Louis Pasteur wrote is book 5 years after darwin, therefore it also proves that at darwin's times, this belief really existed (To which you disagreed above).
More?
Last edited by a moderator:
Muhammad Waqqas
Senior Member
- Messages
- 86
- Reaction score
- 6
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Ladies and gentlemen, we would love to anouce that the Theory of Evolution has just been modified by our Nobel Prize Winner, Mr. HeiGou! Clapping!
You are only speaking about the process of Natural Selection, and there are other people besides you who know of that too:
Darwin based his evolution allegation entirely on the mechanism
of "natural selection." The importance he placed on this mechanism
was evident in the name of his book:
of "natural selection." The importance he placed on this mechanism
was evident in the name of his book:
The Origin of Species, By Means
of Natural Selection… Natural selection holds that those living things that are stronger and more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will survive in the struggle for life. For example, in a deer herd under the
threat of attack by wild animals, those that can run faster will survive.
Therefore, the deer herd will be comprised of faster and stronger individuals. However, unquestionably, this mechanism will not cause deer to evolve and transform themselves into another living species, for instance, horses.
Therefore, the mechanism of natural selection has no evolutionary power. Darwin was also aware of this fact and had to state this in his book The Origin of Species:
Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences
or variations occur. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, The Modern Library, New York, page. 127.)
of Natural Selection… Natural selection holds that those living things that are stronger and more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will survive in the struggle for life. For example, in a deer herd under the
threat of attack by wild animals, those that can run faster will survive.
Therefore, the deer herd will be comprised of faster and stronger individuals. However, unquestionably, this mechanism will not cause deer to evolve and transform themselves into another living species, for instance, horses.
Therefore, the mechanism of natural selection has no evolutionary power. Darwin was also aware of this fact and had to state this in his book The Origin of Species:
Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences
or variations occur. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, The Modern Library, New York, page. 127.)
So, how could these "favorable variations" occur? Darwin tried to answer this question from the standpoint of the primitive understanding of science at that time. According to the French biologist Chevalier de Lamarck (1744-1829), who lived before Darwin, living creatures passed on the traits they acquired during their lifetime to the next generation. He asserted that these traits, which accumulated from one generation to another, caused new species to be formed. For instance, he claimed that giraffes evolved from antelopes;as they struggled to eat the leaves of high trees, their necks
were extended from generation to generation. Darwin also gave similar examples. In his book
were extended from generation to generation. Darwin also gave similar examples. In his book
The Origin of Species, for instance, he said that some bears going into water to find food transformed themselves into whales over time. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition,
Harvard University Press, 1964, page. 184.).
Harvard University Press, 1964, page. 184.).
However, the laws of inheritance discovered by Gregor Mendel (1822-84) and verified by the science of genetics, which flourished in the twentieth century, utterly demolished the legend that acquired traits were passed on to subsequent generations. Thus, natural selection fell out of favor as an evolutionary mechanism.
More?
More?
Muhammad Waqqas
Senior Member
- Messages
- 86
- Reaction score
- 6
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
You know root, your problem is not just less-knowledge, your problem is something much more serious that that. What is the problem? The problem that you have is Stupidity. And believe me, stupidity is a serious deases, by reading your post I think you may have it. Check up with some doctor, here are some of its symptoms:
1) You reply to a post without even knowing the topic/question.
2) You quote things which mean nothing to anyone, not even to the discussion.
3) You keep on talking to your self.
4) You don't read the post completly.
Read the first post of the page where your post is recorded and READ-IT-CAREFULLY!
I asked you to remain brief. I can explain for 5 pages, but you should remain brief. Because Atheist usually keep on blabing irrelivent things just to fillup their posts and satisfy them selves that there is no God.
Read the above reply, It has answers to 95% of your irrelivent and illogical arguments.
Point # 1:
What was I trying to prove? That he did not give the theory? No! That he did not believe in the theory. This whole pagragraph you posted is irrelivent.
Point # 2:
Like I said, these athiests, they can NEVER come up with a logic.
root, besides replying to my points, he starts speaking about cut-and-paste. What has cut-and-paste to do with Darwin not believing in his own theory?!?
Kid, I have the book with me, don't worry. I don't need links. And I assume, that you have read the book, since you really sent me a link to chapter 6. Why the heck did you not quote the answers?!?
Again, self-assumption.. Just like his other Athiest fellow, the same self assumption, you have copied, you have pasted BLAH BLAH BLAH..
Are there no more logical Athiests any more?!?
Arrrrghhhh!!! ATLEAST READ THE WHOLE LINE?!? And analyze what I wrote:
I am not emphisising on price here! And above all, why would you really quote the paragraph? What has price to do with darwin not believing in his own theory?
Who created the first cell.
Its english.
Yea right, "IF". Suppose somebody tells me to wear a dress which will protect me from fire. And he tells me to enter a room, the room in which everybody has to enter, and the room according to some people is full of fire.. And I say "OH, I haven't seen the fire, I won't wear the dress to protect my self from fire, huh? I"m being logical, see? I won't wear it!"
IF..... there is fire.. than there will be no turning back.. If there is no fire, then those who are wearing the same dress, even they will not be harmed.
So I also included the "IF", if you would have really read and analyzed what I wrote.
THIS DOSE NOT PROVE THE THEORY CORRECT.
Everything indeed is made up of atoms? Even the tables, chairs, walls, sand, computres and cares, even they are madeup of Atoms. So? Dose that mean you are evolved from them?
With all due respect Ms Pagal (and that is you with a new name isn't it?), how do you know if you haven't read anything he wrote or even begun to understand what he said? I do not urge you to go out and read his works, because it may upset your Faith and would be a waste of your time anyway, but perhaps you could show Darwin a little more respect?
Well that puts an age to you fairly effectively.
Actually it has a lot to do with it. Considering your youthful age and lack of any basic scientific knowledge, it is likely you will misunderstand and misquote the Apologist site you are quoting from and so if I know which one it is you are cribbing from I can go there, read it, and correct your posts when you make a mistake.
Well nothing more is needed. You say we do not find intermediaries and we do. Simple.
You can say that all you like but it will not become any more true through repetition. Darwin did believe in his theory and went to his grave defending it.
This is not true as Westerners have been able to build much better lenses for some time.
With some other form of eye perhaps? Come on, this is childish.
All this nonsense has nothing to do with evolution of course. And if you thought about it for a minute you would realise that computer monitors are above all else, cheap and so their quality tends to be poor - but they are getting better. Yet Americans can build satellites that can read number plates from outer space. And in 3-D too. So self evidently, scientists can build better lenses than the human eye. Is this the best you can do?
Same old argument - "I am too stupid to think of how this might have occurred therefore it is the work of God". And it is just as wrong now as it ever has been. Eyes do not evolve purely through chance. Eyes evolve through evolution which is, locally, directed. Not random.
So ask the tough question about the eye - the light coems in through the lens and hits the back of the eye where the light is detected by detectors which join together in the optic nerve which runs to the brain. The sensible design would be for the detectors to face towards the front of the eye and for the nerve to run from their back to the optic nerve behind the eyeball. But they do not. They face away from the lens, the nerves join at the back and then the optic nerve, inside the eyeball, has to pass through the back of the eye, blocking a large part of your vision (you have a black spot to the upper outer side of each eye as a result). This is poor design or it is the result of the eye evolving without any designer. Why else would the eye be back to front?
You did. You are wrong if you say Darwin did not agree.
Please do not feel you need to.
How about Sálim Ali, born Sálim Moizuddin Abdul Ali, (November 12, 1896 - July 27, 1987), Stanley Cohen (born November 17, 1922) as for christians, take your pick.
!
Stephen Jay Gould. Richard Dawkins. You name one. Which biologists do not is the more relevant question.
Sure. What is called Punk-Ek. But still Darwinian. You cannot take a quote out of context and claim it is a refutation of Darwinism when it is the opposite.
Why don't you look up what that article says and get back to me?
Well that is not quite a fair claim about what he said. Again why don't you read it and get back to us?
No one had defend Spontaneous Generation for about 200 years when Darwin came along. It had been proven wrong with the first microscopes. It has nothing to do with Darwin at all - who did not, by the way, comment much on the origins of life.
Let me quote
Nevertheless, experimental scientists continued to roll back the frontiers within which the spontaneous generation of complex organisms could be observed. The first step was taken by the Italian Francesco Redi, who, in 1668, proved that no maggots appeared in meat when flies were prevented from laying eggs. From the seventeenth century onwards it was gradually shown that, at least in the case of all the higher and readily visible organisms, spontaneous generation did not occur, but that omne vivum ex ovo, every living thing came from a pre-existing living thing.
Then in 1683 Antoni van Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria, and it was soon found that however carefully organic matter might be protected by screens, or by being placed in stoppered receptacles, putrefaction set in, and was invariably accompanied by the appearance of myriad bacteria and other low organisms. As knowledge of microscopic forms of life increased, so the apparent realm of abiogenesis increased, and it became tempting to hypothesise that while abiogenesis might not take place for creatures visible to the naked eye, there existed a fount at the microscopic level from which living organisms continually arose from inorganic matter.
In 1768 Lazzaro Spallanzani proved that microbes came from the air, and could be killed by boiling. Yet it was not until 1862 that Louis Pasteur performed a series of careful experiments which conclusively proved that a truly sterile medium would remain sterile.
Then in 1683 Antoni van Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria, and it was soon found that however carefully organic matter might be protected by screens, or by being placed in stoppered receptacles, putrefaction set in, and was invariably accompanied by the appearance of myriad bacteria and other low organisms. As knowledge of microscopic forms of life increased, so the apparent realm of abiogenesis increased, and it became tempting to hypothesise that while abiogenesis might not take place for creatures visible to the naked eye, there existed a fount at the microscopic level from which living organisms continually arose from inorganic matter.
In 1768 Lazzaro Spallanzani proved that microbes came from the air, and could be killed by boiling. Yet it was not until 1862 that Louis Pasteur performed a series of careful experiments which conclusively proved that a truly sterile medium would remain sterile.
So 180 years before Darwin's book, van Leeuwenhoek proved SG was wrong. So your entire argument collapses. Not that SG has anything to do with evolution at all, it is to do with the origins of life abotu which Darwin did not talk much.
Got anything?
Thank you, thank you. But alas I have modified nothing. To the ignorant old ideas look new.
Do you doubt that if the slow deer are eaten the faster deer will survive and so over time the deer herd will become faster?
And that "unquestionable" shows the stupidity of the author and of course no one says deer will become horses. They may, however, become something else.
Which is perfectly true and utterly irrelevant to your claims above. It is clear that variation in deer does occur - some are faster than others, no two looks exactly alike.
This is utterly ignorant. Darwin rejected Lamarckian theories. There is no point attempting to claim that Darwin was a Lamarkian when he was not. It is in fact amazing that Darwin, without understanding genetics, nonetheless did a verty good job of working out how it all worked. DNA simply proves Darwin right. AS you would know if you had done as much as High School biology.
I am waiting for you to start.
Last edited:
IbnAbdulHakim
IB Addict
- Messages
- 16,476
- Reaction score
- 2,628
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
i actually did read his book and i couldnt stop laughing, it was a nice lot of jokes
What did you think was funny about it?
IbnAbdulHakim
IB Addict
- Messages
- 16,476
- Reaction score
- 2,628
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
he thinks we use to be monkeys before
, lol imagine if a kid comes up2u and says, did you know that toilets use to be able to talk 
he thinks we use to be monkeys before
Well there are obvious similarities between us and the great apes. In fact if you look at the skeletons of all mammals it is obvious that we are really similar. Go to your local museum and have a look. Now it is also obvious that human bones and monkey bones are really really similar. In fact if they did not bend the skeleton in museums to make them look more ape-like I doubt that you would be able to tell a gorilla skeleton from a human one. If you look at live gorillas or chimpanzees it is also obvious that we are a lot alike. I don't think that even Creationists would deny that fundamental similarities between us and the great apes. Besides, which book are you thinking of? Darwin was very careful about upsetting people and talking about monkeys.
Just in passing, Darwin wrote during the Victorian period when everyone had more time and was a lot more serious. So his books are not packaged in the "sound-bite" style of modern authors. They take a lot of time and some serious thinking, but he is very sensible and I would recommend him in general.
- Status