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.
Actually, Darwin never made the "survival of the fittest" claim. That was added on later by other people.
.
Darwin forumlated the principle, but never used those exact words. Just like Bogey never said the words, but everybody knew he wanted Sam to play it again..
Darwin forumlated the principle, but never used those exact words. Just like Bogey never said the words, but everybody knew he wanted Sam to play it again..
...and everybody knew Darth wanted Luke to acknowledge their relationship.
I'm still waiting to see the hundreds of millions of fossilized transitional life forms. They have to be somewhere in order to make evolution plausible.
Some important factors prevent the formation of fossils from being common:
Fossilization itself is not a particularly common event. It requires conditions that preserve the fossil before it becomes scavenged or decayed. Such conditions are common only in a very few habitats, such as river deltas, peat bogs, and tar pits. Organisms that do not live in or near these habitats will be preserved only rarely.
Many types of animals are fragile and do not preserve well.
Many species have small ranges. Their chance of fossilization will be proportionally small.
The evolution of new species probably is fairly rapid in geological terms, so the transitions between species will be uncommon.
Passenger pigeons, once numbered in the billions, went extinct less than 200 years ago. How many passenger pigeon fossils can you find? If they are hard to find, why should we expect to find fossils that are likely from smaller populations and have been subject to millions of years of potential erosion?
There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
Eh, I have mixed feelings about the subject. Especially when it comes to conclusions regarding human nature, i.e. "survival of the fittest", "only the strong survive", etc. And especially when it pertains to "evolutionary psychology" and what it has to say about male and female behavior....
Not a pretty picture, actually it can be pretty damn depressing....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
Actually, Darwin never made the "survival of the fittest" claim. That was added on later by other people.
And, if you actually look at it, there's a lot evidence that mutual support is a major factor in survival. So, your instinct to not trust that point is probably pretty accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
Darwin forumlated the principle, but never used those exact words. Just like Bogey never said the words, but everybody knew he wanted Sam to play it again..
No he didn't
Darwin said - "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change."
Herbert Spencer is best known for coining the phrase "survival of the fittest".If Herbert actually understood evolution, he would have said "survival of the most adaptable to change".
I see nothing wrong with not having an opinion one way or the other on a subject. Especially if it doesn't really affect your life. Was Degas a better painter than Picasso? Well, doesn't really matter to me either way, because I don't find art to be interesting.
As for my opinion on the subject brought up in the OP, I can find no reason for both not to be possible. Something was created, and evolved from there.
I wouldn't say that the theory of evolution has absolutely NO scientific evidence supporting it. There is, in theory, at least some.
It's just that they're missing a few little details -like millions upon millions of fossilized transitional life forms.
This is actually one of the greatest areas of mythological fairytale story telling the world has ever known. Think of all the kool Hollywood films that never would have evolved otherwise!!!
Nope. Relativity on improved the newtons theory of gravity.
fair enough, don't get why you're using an evolution v creation diagram to prove your point. if you had bothered to read my entire opening post you'd see that as an atheist i have less time for the creationist idea
Unless the argument on the conservative side is that the very existence of the universe proves, through a comparable scientific method, that the entire universe was "intelligently designed" for no other reason than to be a habitat for the humanity to which all theologians unanimously belong.
Scientific Method: refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2] One of the first to clearly outline the specifics of a scientific method was John Stuart Mill."
The major problem with trying to use the scientific method here with regards how evolution came about in the first place is that even the proselytizers of this religious worldview even admit the remote possibility of it coming about by random chance (or as the Reverend Dawkins says, "blind pointless indifference") in the first place given the mathematical odds. Nevertheless they insist it happened and it only happened once and here we are and we all just have to accept it. So because the so-called scientific method cannot be used here to replicate anything regarding life morphing from that pre-biotic protein enriched oceanic soup, it is therefore not only unscientific by their own definition, but it's also stupid. Thus, we find it to be one of the most incredible faith-based beliefs the world has ever known.
I believe we are still waiting from the other thread for you to cite us just one scientific empirical example (which is also peer-reviewed) of how the brilliant informational code encrypted in DNA came about by random chance through physics and chemistry.
Last edited by bluepacific; 10-14-2009 at 07:01 AM..
Many people believe that the KJB is the only valid English version, though they refuse to acknowledge that scribes even went ahead and added wording and cut out parts at that time.
What I mean by this is that there is a lot of history that is first wiped out, outlawed and still denied to this day by many christian religions. I jjust squished a bunch of the bad from a specific channel of history into one sentence. Women's rights were quickly wiped away and supportd by being jaded in the new bible's version to make women seem less important and playing less important roles.
You seem to forget though, of the Thirty Year War in Spain, and how do you account for witches being burned at the stake in the last half of the 1700's in various countries, or how christianity supported slavery as a God given right, or what the Spanish did to the Natives in Mexico?
Religious violence has gone on for thousands of years and still goes on today. It is not long after the period of history I'm talking about. I'm talking about the stupidity of the beliefs shaped by man (not God) by changing and burning parts of historical documents "for the better of humanity" and the violence "in God's name" throughout historic and modern times.
Much evil has been committed in the name of all religions, all nations, all races.
The witch burnings in the 1700's - if you meant what Wiccansn today refer to as "The Burning Time" occured primarily between 1550 and 1650. Civil courts were those responsible for the accusation, sentencing and death of "witches", not the Catholic Church. The only way in which the Catholic Church was involved was through the foundation of theology that opposed witches common to all Christian faiths.
By the 1700's, such as during the infamous Salem Witch trials in the US, it was a Protestant based society that killed witches.
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.
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.
