U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-12-2008, 01:30 AM
 
3,584 posts, read 462,119 times
Reputation: 388

Advertisements

Sanspeur,

Thanks for the link, will read it.

 
Old 10-12-2008, 07:03 AM
 
428 posts, read 1,489,458 times
Reputation: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by meerkat2 View Post
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Natural Selection
While Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy -- a plausible mechanism called "natural selection." Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species. Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild. Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding. Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely...
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4]


And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]
These quotes from Darwin are invariably taken out of context and used to refute his own theory. The FACT is, Darwin was a thoughtful and intelligent scientist, and he knew these were potential caveats to his theory. His follow-up statements in the context are always left out, in which he goes on to explain why the eye could indeed have evolved.

"Irreducible complexity" is an argument that was in essence promoted more than 200 years ago by William Paley. There are many, many scientific refutations to this.

It's the same problem every time--Creationists do not actually learn the facts of evolutionary theory, but only a bunch of nonsense from other Creationists. Why would anyone read a Creationist website or book in order to talk about evolutionary theory??? I would not read Euclid's Geometry if I were preparing to discuss Genesis.
 
Old 10-12-2008, 07:29 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
789 posts, read 1,171,420 times
Reputation: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by meerkat2 View Post
And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]
Quote mining is a bad way to make a point. Go on and read the next few sentences to see the point he was making. I'll post it for you.
Quote:
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.
 
Old 10-13-2008, 05:51 PM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC (in my mind)
7,946 posts, read 14,643,462 times
Reputation: 4457
I think there is just as many misconceptions about evolution among the creationist camp as there is about creation among the evolutionist camp. In fact the only thing that makes them incompatible is the age of the earth, which we can't really know because a day in God's time may not be our 24-hour day we know today.
 
Old 10-13-2008, 06:09 PM
 
428 posts, read 1,489,458 times
Reputation: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by fancofu View Post
Quote mining is a bad way to make a point. Go on and read the next few sentences to see the point he was making. I'll post it for you.
Thanks for posting Darwin's next sentence. I would have, but didn't have my copy of Origin handy. The Creationists love to use that statement by itself, always leaving out the next statement, to try to claim Darwin refuted his own theory. Absurd.
 
Old 10-13-2008, 06:33 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,043 posts, read 30,755,704 times
Reputation: 12223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mozart271 View Post
Thanks for posting Darwin's next sentence. I would have, but didn't have my copy of Origin handy. The Creationists love to use that statement by itself, always leaving out the next statement, to try to claim Darwin refuted his own theory. Absurd.
I think that it's likely that creationists get most or all of their info from sites like AIG, so they may not even realize that what they read there is taken out of context and has many omissions.

Bchris, there is a lot more than the dispute of the time frame that makes creation in dispute with evolution....Almost everything that creations take as fact disputes reality...The flood, man and Dinosaurs living at the same time, Adam created with a puff of dust...etc. etc.
 
Old 10-13-2008, 09:12 PM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC (in my mind)
7,946 posts, read 14,643,462 times
Reputation: 4457
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Bchris, there is a lot more than the dispute of the time frame that makes creation in dispute with evolution....Almost everything that creations take as fact disputes reality...The flood, man and Dinosaurs living at the same time, Adam created with a puff of dust...etc. etc.
If you interpret the creation story in the most simplistic, literal way then yes, but if days were really much longer periods of time, they could go together. Plus, even evolution tells us everything comes from stardust...so yes the dust thing works out too. Truth is, I don't know exactly how God created the heavens and the earth and I will not know until I get to Heaven, but I DO know that He did it. Everything is to precise and perfect for it to have come about by simple chance.
 
Old 10-13-2008, 09:16 PM
 
Location: Texas
4,346 posts, read 5,578,222 times
Reputation: 843
I think it would be honest for both sides to admit that there are problems with both bible literalism and with the concept that life came about by random chance. No?
 
Old 10-14-2008, 12:40 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,043 posts, read 30,755,704 times
Reputation: 12223
Well I would rather put my faith in science. At least when they discover that a hypothesis is wrong they admit it, then try to discover why it is wrong. Something creationists have never done. Science does not claim to know everything about biogenesis or evolution. If they did, then science would be redundant.

Bchris science does not make the claim that abiogenesis began with stardust. In any case abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. If you really understood natural selection you would realize that it is not only possible for creatures to evolve perfectly to fill whatever niche they occupy, but almost certain fact. It was not chance at all, but took millions of years, and is still going on today, and will continue for as long as the earth can support life.

firstborn, I agree that life did not evolve by chance, although how life began is still unknown.
 
Old 10-14-2008, 05:38 AM
 
Location: PA
2,616 posts, read 3,927,592 times
Reputation: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by pennel View Post
Not true my friend, it is just the opposite of what you say.
Christiany is a nice romantic story, evolution is a logical theory.
Whose logic?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top