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.
Again, why the heck are Creationists/IDers always banging on about Darwin anyway?
Since Darwin's time, the Theory of Evolution has been rigorously debated and tested for 150 years and nothing has disproved it. Many scientific advances in fields like molecular biology, genetics, physics, geology and chemistry have supported, refined, and expanded the Theory of Evolution far beyond anything Darwin could have dreamed.
"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." Charles Darwin
I'll let Mr. Darwin speak for himself. He obviously didn't read his own book.
Have you?
Perhaps you can expound on the Cambrian Explosion for us.
More deliberately deceptive quote-mining and lies? Are no tactics too dirty or deceitful for you?
And finally something Darwin did say, but which is often quoted out of context to suggest that Darwin himself had doubts about the validity of his theories:
‘I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.’
This has to be read in the context of the areas that Darwin and Gray had been discussing (and which can be followed closely from the rest of the published correspondence) which was the problem of how to account for species of plants for which there were no, or few, closely related species. Darwin was attempting to come up with a theory to account for this and had speculated that these ‘disjoined species’ would be found to come from genera which had very few species in total. This was not based on a great deal of observation however, hence it appeared to him to be ‘unscientific’. He is not making a general comment on his larger theory of speciation through natural selection.
This is a good example of the sort of selective reading that is fairly common. Caveat lector!
Again, why the heck are Creationists/IDers always banging on about Darwin anyway?
Since Darwin's time, the Theory of Evolution has been rigorously debated and tested for 150 years and nothing has disproved it. Many scientific advances in fields like molecular biology, genetics, physics, geology and chemistry have supported, refined, and expanded the Theory of Evolution far beyond anything Darwin could have dreamed.
There is not one verifiable instance of evolution. Not one. None. Nota.
How about you take on the 21st century DNA evidence of evolution?
I have to ask you, since you have such faith in science, which science do you have faith in? Today's? The science of 50 years ago? A hundred years ago? My point is that science is constantly proving itself wrong, and 100 years from now many scientific notions of today will be recognized as patently false.
At least you haven't cited Piltdown Man as evidence. I prefer "nota", I'm a gringo. I'm curious as to how you have determined that I am ignorant. You know nothing about me except that I am opposed to your belief in evolution. Is everyone that disagrees with you ignorant in your opinion? You know nothing about my station in life, my educational level, my life experiences, yet you call me ignorant. What shall I call you?
Believing that all the wonders of "creation," how perfectly everything in nature and physics works together, all happened by "accident" and that there was no intelligence involved at all, takes more faith than accepting that there is intelligence involved. It actually creates more questions than it answeres, and leads to wrong conclusions.
It is said that there is no such thing as "settled science." All theories are subject to revision. Darwinians have claimed that "evolution" is "settled science." They pursue their field on that basis. They are fools.
I think the wiser path is the assumption of intelligence applied to the creation of all things, and to pursue scientific discovery on that basis.
Too many things just "magically" work together to have happened by accident. Don't you think?
I like to think of the behaviors of solid state electronics, that have made so many of our modern devices possible. Could these physical qualities of various elements just have happened by accident? I don't think so.
Do you think the earth is only 6000 years old too?
The 'wiser path' would be to actually educate yourself about the Theory of Evolution.
I have to ask you, since you have such faith in science, which science do you have faith in? Today's? The science of 50 years ago? A hundred years ago? My point is that science is constantly proving itself wrong, and 100 years from now many scientific notions of today will be recognized as patently false.
Do you expect science to stop and never seek to learn new things and improve on past and current knowledge?
How strange.
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.
Are no tactics too dirty or deceitful for you?
