Evolution Theory Existed Long Before Darwin

[The Barbarian]

Evolutionists claim that Sagan's statement is original and this "we are made of star-stuff (i.e., stardust) has been attributed to Sagan more than anyone else.

That would be really odd, since I knew about it in the 1960s. You've been lied to.

50 years ago, scientists didn’t know where heavy elements came from​

Excerpt from the December 20, 1969 issue of Science News ​

50 years ago, scientists didn’t know where heavy elements came from

 

[Diamond7]

Joni Mitchell was a career marijuana user who's constant use of the drug inspired her entire worldview. So did Sagan borrow his expression from a stoner who shared her delusional pipe dreams? Maybe in part. However, the belief that we evolved and are uncreated goes back to ancient times.

The concept of "stardust" has been prevalent in scientific discourse for decades, particularly in the context of stellar evolution and cosmology. It's also a term that has captured the imagination of poets, writers, and musicians who have used it to evoke themes of interconnectedness, cosmic origins, and the mystery of the universe.

In the context of Joni Mitchell's song "Woodstock," the use of the word "stardust" contributes to the song's themes of unity, transcendence, and the spiritual connection between humanity and the cosmos. It serves as a poetic expression of the idea that human beings are made of the same cosmic material as the stars, reinforcing a sense of shared identity and belonging within the vastness of the universe.

 

[Diamond7]

50 years ago, scientists didn’t know where heavy elements came from

The line "That there's a broken strand of 'stardust' in it" is from the poem "The Star-Splitter" by Robert Frost, which was published in 1915.
In this context, Frost uses the term "stardust" to suggest a cosmic or ethereal quality to the human mind or experience, emphasizing the interconnectedness between humanity and the universe. The broken strand of stardust implies a disruption or fracture in this cosmic connection, adding depth to the poem's exploration of human emotion and existential themes.

The orbitofrontal cortex processes things like art, beauty, poetry, math and science. So they tend to be connected because they are processed by the same part of the brain. It was actually art that discovered proportion and science received their understanding from people like Michael Angelo and
Leonardo da Vinci
Polymath

Esp in their study of hands and the face.

 

[expos4ever]

Evolutionists claim that Sagan's statement is original and this "we are made of star-stuff (i.e., stardust) has been attributed to Sagan more than anyone else.

Joni Mitchell was a career marijuana user who's constant use of the drug inspired her entire worldview. So did Sagan borrow his expression from a stoner who shared her delusional pipe dreams? Maybe in part.

The idea that Carl Sagan's ideas about evolution / how humans developed was based on Joni Mitchell is wild speculation on your part.

It is clear what you are doing - you are trying to tar Carl Sagan's ideas by suggesting the possibility of a fictitious connection to Joni Mitchell.

However, the belief that we evolved and are uncreated goes back to ancient times.

2nd century church father Theophilus of Antioch speaks extensively about how some pagan Greeks believed in evolution theory and atheism. Here we read about the supposed evolution of life from stardust:

So way back in the 2nd century A.D. we see how one of the early church fathers was speaking to his friend Autolycum (Autolycus) about a belief held by ancient Greek philosophers. One of the beliefs they held is that our existence is uncreated and how we were produced by the stars.

How many of you learned that in school? Do they ever teach the origin of evolutionist philosophy in the public schools? We are all told from our youth that all these beliefs held by evolutionists are new discoveries. We are never told that evolution as a theory came from various pagan philosophies including Greek mythology. These secular educators are holding back much information from their students. They get their students to accept things like Greek mythology and then tell them its all modern discoveries of science, when in fact its all ancient mythology.

Profoundly misleading as I am sure others have pointed out.

The fact that ancients may have believed we evolved - and held this belief purely for "philosophical" reasons and without a shred of scientific evidence - has nothing to do with modern evolutionary theory that is robustly grounded in masses of scientific evidence.

In short, you are trying to dupe people into believing that just because evolution was adopted in the past for dubious philosophical / religious reasons, this somehow undermines modern evolutionary theory. You are trying to demonstrate a kind of guilt by association that is a complete fiction.

 

[HarleyER]

Yes, the idea of "evolution" is ancient. But evolution isn't the bug-a-boo that so many fellow Christians feel it is. It isn't a lie because there's evidence for it, scientific evidence.

Still, being the history buff that I am, I appreciate your citation of the book about Theophilus of Antioch by the late historian, Robert M. Grant. I have a couple of his books and I've enjoyed his work.

We hear the same nonsense coming to us about Climate Change. “There is all this evidence for the changing climate.” Of course, the Ice Age and the global warming of the 15th century are ignored.

There is no scientific evidence for evolution. There are only various hypotheses. One cannot prove evolution because it can’t be re-created. It is all subjective just like Climate Change.

So, one can choose what they want to believe. But it is completely wrong to say there is "scientific evidence" when they can't even produce hard core evidence of a chain of evolutionary progress.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

We hear the same nonsense coming to us about Climate Change. “There is all this evidence for the changing climate.” Of course, the Ice Age and the global warming of the 15th century are ignored.

There is no scientific evidence for evolution. There are only various hypotheses. One cannot prove evolution because it can’t be re-created. It is all subjective just like Climate Change.

So, one can choose what they want to believe. But it is completely wrong to say there is "scientific evidence" when they can't even produce hard core evidence of a chain of evolutionary progress.

I'm not here to tell you what to think, so I'll just take things with a grain of salt and keep my education intact despite what others here might think.

Be blessed.

 

[Diamond7]

The idea that Carl Sagan's ideas about evolution / how humans developed was based on Joni Mitchell is wild speculation on your part.

According to the New York Times, he copied her.

Opinion | Our Cosmic Selves (Published 2015)

Life on Earth is intimately connected to the celestial realm.

www.nytimes.com

 

[expos4ever]

According to the New York Times, he copied her.

Opinion | Our Cosmic Selves (Published 2015)

Life on Earth is intimately connected to the celestial realm.

www.nytimes.com

That article most certainly does not say that he copied her.

It says "she beat him to the punch" - merely saying she said something before he did. You cannot assume that he copied her. I do not know on precisely what basis Joni Mitchell came up with the idea that "we are stardust". But I can assure you that Carl Sagan, a highly trained expert did not in any way base his ideas on the lyrics of a pop song.

 

[expos4ever]

One cannot prove evolution because it can’t be re-created.

Deeply misleading.

From Scientific American:

Creationist Claim: Evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

Response: This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time—changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

 

[HarleyER]

I'm not here to tell you what to think, so I'll just take things with a grain of salt and keep my education intact despite what others here might think.

Be blessed.

I don't mean to tell you what to think. I'm just presenting another, more scriptural, view.

Thanks.

2 Tim 3:5

 

[HarleyER]

Deeply misleading.

From Scientific American:

Creationist Claim: Evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

Response: This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time—changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

I'm not impressed with "Scientific" American. Like most magazines today, they are a bias source. They refuse to publish any works on Intelligent Design, calling it pseudo-science. So you'll never hear the other side of the story. The Evolutionists are simply shutting out any discussion. It isn't any different than Climate Change. You'll find loads of articles discussing Climate Change, but not a peep from those who don't buy into it.

People are being brainwashed and they don't even realize it. We're like frogs in hot water.

 

[Diamond7]

It says "she beat him to the punch"

Art and science are both processed by the orbitofrontal cortex in the front of the brain. The outer layers of the brain of course are a lot more advanced (evolved) than the brain stem or core. So there is a connection between Science and Art. We see this with Leonardo Da Vinci and Michael D'Angelo who brought proportion to art and ultimately science.


These are the lyrics from Joni Mitchell's song "Woodstock," which was written in 1969. The song was inspired by the Woodstock Music & Art Fair, a historic music festival held in August 1969 in upstate New York.

Here's a breakdown of the lyrics:

1. "We are stardust": This line poetically expresses the idea that the elements composing human beings and all life on Earth originated from the remnants of stars. It speaks to the interconnectedness of humanity with the cosmos and the notion that we are made of the same materials as the universe itself.
2. "Billion year old carbon": This line further emphasizes the idea of human beings being made of stardust by referring to carbon, an element essential for life on Earth. Carbon atoms formed billions of years ago in the cores of stars through nuclear fusion processes.
3. "We are golden": This line suggests a sense of purity, transcendence, or spiritual enlightenment. It may convey the idea that despite the challenges and complexities of life, there is inherent beauty and value in humanity.
4. "Caught in the devil's bargain": This line alludes to the struggles and compromises that individuals face in the modern world. It may symbolize societal pressures, materialism, or moral dilemmas that can lead people away from their true selves or from living in harmony with nature.
5. "And we've got to get ourselves / Back to the garden": This closing line evokes the longing for a return to a more natural, harmonious state of existence. It references the concept of a "garden" as a metaphorical place of peace, purity, and connection with the earth, perhaps suggesting a desire to rediscover and reconnect with humanity's innate connection to nature and the cosmos.

Overall, the lyrics of "Woodstock" reflect themes of interconnectedness, spirituality, and the quest for authenticity in a rapidly changing world. The song became an anthem of the 1960s counterculture and remains a beloved classic today.

 

[expos4ever]

I'm not impressed with "Scientific" American. Like most magazines today, they are a bias source. They refuse to publish any works on Intelligent Design, calling it pseudo-science. So you'll never hear the other side of the story. The Evolutionists are simply shutting out any discussion. It isn't any different than Climate Change. You'll find loads of articles discussing Climate Change, but not a peep from those who don't buy into it.

People are being brainwashed and they don't even realize it. We're like frogs in hot water.

You are not addressing the points made in the article. You had earlier posted that evolution is not science because it cannot be recreated. However, this is not a correct characterization of science. Many scientific investigations do not involve experiments or direct observation. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but both scientists can learn a great deal about the universe through observation and comparison.

Your line of argument is frequently, but erroneously, used to dismiss evolution as not being true science. But, there is wide consensus among the experts that something can be science without requiring the ability to conduct experiments in the present.

 

[expos4ever]

Art and science are both processed by the orbitofrontal cortex in the front of the brain. The outer layers of the brain of course are a lot more advanced (evolved) than the brain stem or core. So there is a connection between Science and Art. We see this with Leonardo Da Vinci and Michael D'Angelo who brought proportion to art and ultimately science. .....

I have no particular disagreement with your interpretation of Joni Mitchell's song. The point is that Carl Sagan most certainly did not base any of his scientific beliefs on the lyrics of a pop musician.

 

[Diamond7]

The point is that Carl Sagan most certainly did not base any of his scientific beliefs on the lyrics of a pop musician.

The question is where did she get the lyrics for her song?

 

[Diamond7]

The point is that Carl Sagan most certainly did not base any of his scientific beliefs on the lyrics of a pop musician.

The question is where did she get the lyrics for her song?

 

[expos4ever]

The question is where did she get the lyrics for her song?

Why does this matter? Of what relevance is the song lyrics of someone who likely knows as much about evolution / science as I know about songwriting (which is zilch)?

Are you trying to convince readers that because some people - people who are not experts in the relevant domains - have historically embraced some form of "evolution / naturalism" for dubious reason, this casts doubt on the soundness of evolutionary theory?

If you are, it is an argument that will not dupe the thinking reader - the fact that there are "bad" reasons for embracing evolution does not mean that there aren't good reasons for embracing it.

 

[HarleyER]

You are not addressing the points made in the article. You had earlier posted that evolution is not science because it cannot be recreated. However, this is not a correct characterization of science. Many scientific investigations do not involve experiments or direct observation. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but both scientists can learn a great deal about the universe through observation and comparison.

Your line of argument is frequently, but erroneously, used to dismiss evolution as not being true science. But, there is wide consensus among the experts that something can be science without requiring the ability to conduct experiments in the present.

From your article:

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries.​

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.​

So what is being told to us by Scientific American, they can INFER information for evolution but they want EVIDENCE for disproving evolution. Don't you see even a slight problem of bias in this?

Yes, a great deal can be gleaned from general observation and comparison. Romans states this as well. And for seventeen centuries, there were many great scientific discoveries by godly scientists.

I don't care if a "wide consensus among the experts that something can be science without requiring the ability to conduct experiments". I doubt if you would agree with this statement if you were the one to try a new vaccine.

 

[expos4ever]

So what is being told to us by Scientific American, they can INFER information for evolution but they want EVIDENCE for disproving evolution. Don't you see even a slight problem of bias in this?

There is no problem here - you are taking liberties with the meanings of words. You are trading on the fact that the word "infer", when used in common day-to-day parlance, can mean to reach a conclusion on less-than-convincing evidence. But that is not how the word is being used in the article. They mean "infer" in the sense of drawing a justified conclusion based on evidence.

At worst, the writers of the article are guilty of less than perfect word choice.

But forget about the article - the fact remains that disciplines like cosmology, astronomy, and geology are rightly considered "science" even though they do not "re-create" phenomena in a controlled laboratory setting. The key point is that they all commit to developing models that can be tested by evidence, even if not specifically through "repeating or re-creating" the thing that they need to test.

Yours is a common creationist misrepresentation - the idea that something has to be repeatable to be considered legitimate science. For example, the big bang theory makes a prediction about the relative abundances of certain atoms in the universe. That prediction agrees with observation, thus supporting the theory. No one insists that the big bang be somehow reproduced in order to have this count as "science".

 

[expos4ever]

I don't care if a "wide consensus among the experts that something can be science without requiring the ability to conduct experiments". I doubt if you would agree with this statement if you were the one to try a new vaccine.

You may not care, but that is hardly the point. A neutral reader will want to know on precisely what basis do you reject the consensus that science does not require "repeatability". So, what is your argument against this? Why should a neutral reader believe you against the majority of trained experts?

As for your vaccine analogy, vaccines are indeed always tested in the conventional "run an experiment" sense. So it is not really analogous to something like evolution where, for obvious reasons, we cannot "run a 4 billion year experiment".