I'm tired of the "last Tuesday" argument, so..

[JohnR7]

It has nothing to do with evolution, troll.

Matthew 25:40
And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'

Are you calling the King a troll?

.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Matthew 25:40
And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'

Are you calling the King a troll?

.

Nice dodge, troll. But CALLING you a troll isn't the same as hiring a team of clowns to run around your house spray painting troll over everything. That verse specifically refers to actions, not words.

 

[Plan 9]

Actually, the author of Omphalos was Philip Henry Gosse. I'd like to see a copy; it's full of old plates.
Do you think these folks have reinvented the wheel or do you think his ideas have been passed along without credit?
Either way, he should be credited, as you have done.

Reinvented the wheel. You just restated the position of the book Oomphalos by Paul Gosse published in 1857.

Awww! You gave it away! I wanted truthteller to explain! LOL

LOL! Lamarckism is AGAINST Darwinism, since it involves inheritance of ACQUIRED characteristics. Darwinism doesn't allow that, and neither does biochemistry and genetics.

 

[Plan 9]

The creation does not look bilions of years old thet perception is the Big Lie of our day as all of Creation shouts the young age. Only Evil-uotion THEORY says otherwise & theory is all it is, thereis NO proof of any of its claims.

As Lucaspa has already pointed out, the Earth looked billions of years old to Henry Phillip Gosse, one of the last reputable scientists to be a Creationist, and he wrote Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot, which was published in 1857, to account for it. Stephen Jay Gould called him "a dedicated empiricist" and "the finest descriptive naturalist of his day". ( pg. 101, PB edition, Gould, the Flamingo's Smile,1987).
According to Gould, Omphalos did not assert that God "lied" in giving the Earth an appearence of great age, but this probably isn't interesting enough to go into for most readers of this thread.
Suffice it to say, obe, Creationists of the time were convinced by the evidence of Earht's age. "Evil-uotion THEORY" was not the only theory to say so.
If you want to be a Creationist, perhaps you should get to know the old Creationists better?

Do you think that Creationists, including Darwin, wanted to be Evolutionists?

 

[Plan 9]

Well, the first edition of Origin lacked a theoretical foundation for natural selection to operate on, so the second edition in 1869(?) postulated something like Lamarckism. Mendel's work of 1866 languished unrecognized until about 1900, when genetics and natural selection were synthesized into modern neo-Darwinism.

Not exactly a "logical implication," but maybe what truthteller is talking about.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html

Above is the link to the first edition of The Origin of Species.
I've been reading for some time and Darwin seems to me to have a decent theoretical foundation to go on. Perhaps you'd like to read for a while and then quote some specific passages with which to make your point?

 

[Jet Black]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html

I only read first editions

 

[lucaspa]

God did not use Evil-oution to do anything! Evil-oution is a tool of deception, Satans tool.

Well, you are correct as far as you go. God did not use "evil-oution". He used evolution.

 

[Philosoft]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html

Above is the link to the first edition of The Origin of Species.
I've been reading for some time and Darwin seems to me to have a decent theoretical foundation to go on. Perhaps you'd like to read for a while and then quote some specific passages with which to make your point?

"Basis" in this context means "physical means of inheriting characteristics which form the operating basis for natural selection." In short, Darwin was ignorant of Mendelian genetics.

 

[lucaspa]

As Lucaspa has already pointed out, the Earth looked billions of years old to Henry Phillip Gosse, one of the last reputable scientists to be a Creationist, and he wrote Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot, which was published in 1857, to account for it.

Gosse was a minister, not a scientist. The last reputable scientists to believe in a truly YOUNG earth were Whewell, Thomas Burnet, and William Whiston in the late 1700s. By 1800 all naturalists (all of whom were at least deists and most theists and many Christian ministers) had an old earth.

According to Gould, Omphalos did not assert that God "lied" in giving the Earth an appearence of great age, but this probably isn't interesting enough to go into for most readers of this thread.

No, it was Gosse's fellow Christian ministers who realized that Gosse was calling God a liar. Rev. Charles Kingsley wrote Gosse a letter declining to do a Forward for the book:
"You have given the 'vestiges of creation theory' [the pamphlet Gosse wrote the book in reply to] the best shove forward which it has ever had. I have a special dislike for that book; but, honestly, I felt my heart melting towards it as I read Oomphalos. Shall I tell you the truth? It is best. Your book is the first that ever made me doubt the doctrine of absolute creation, and I fear it will make hundreds do so. Your book tends to prove this - that if we accept the fact of absolute creation, God becomes God-the-Sometime-Deceiver. I do not mean merely in the case of fossils which pretend to be the bones of dead animals; but in ...your newly created Adam's navel, you make God tell a lie. It is not my reason, but my conscience which revolts here ... I cannot ...believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind. To this painful dilemma you have brought me, and will, I fear, bring hundreds. It will not make me throw away my Bible. I trust and hope. I know in whom I have believed, and can trust Him to bring my faith safe through this puzzle, as He has through others; but for the young I do fear. I would not for a thousand pounds put your book into my children's hands."

If you want to be a Creationist, perhaps you should get to know the old Creationists better?

Modern day creationists ignore history the way they ignore data. They forget that creationism was THE accepted scientific theory from 1700-1831.

 

[lucaspa]

Well, the first edition of Origin lacked a theoretical foundation for natural selection to operate on, so the second edition in 1869(?) postulated something like Lamarckism. Mendel's work of 1866 languished unrecognized until about 1900, when genetics and natural selection were synthesized into modern neo-Darwinism.

Not exactly a "logical implication," but maybe what truthteller is talking about.

I doubt that Truthteller was that conversant with Origin of the Species or the theories about inheritance in Darwin's day.

Natural selection was the theoretical foundation for transforming species. It was based on observation of artificial selection (same thing but conducted by humans) being able to change species of domesticated plants and animals.

Now, what you are referring to is that natural selection does not work under Blended Characteristics, which was the dominant theory of inheritance in Darwin's day. Under blended characteristics, new traits get swamped by the blending with the existing characteristics. Darwin thought Blended Characteristics was wrong because he could see that it didn't work under artificial selection, but he had no solid refutation or alternative to Blended Characteristics.

Ironically, Mendel sent him a copy of his paper but Darwin was really poor at languages and never took the effort to translate the paper (he translated German word by word by constantly referrig back to a German-English dictionary).

Therefore, Darwin did imply more Lamarckism in later editions of Origin, altho never actually coming out and endorsing it.

 

[lucaspa]

Do you think these folks have reinvented the wheel or do you think his ideas have been passed along without credit?
Either way, he should be credited, as you have done.

They reinvent the wheel. They have not assimilated history. How could they? If they paid attention to history then they would have to admit that creationism had already been falsified.

So, instead of availing themselves of the knowledge of the collective (the knowledge of those who have gone before) they act like individual drones and have to make everything up as they go along.

BTW, I doubt Truthteller is going to be back to this thread.

 

[Jet Black]

sounds more like locutus than lucaspa

 

[Plan 9]

They reinvent the wheel. They have not assimilated history. How could they? If they paid attention to history then they would have to admit that creationism had already been falsified.

So, instead of availing themselves of the knowledge of the collective (the knowledge of those who have gone before) they act like individual drones and have to make everything up as they go along.

BTW, I doubt Truthteller is going to be back to this thread.

Sadly, I see your point and must reluctantly concur.

An individual drone, once having left one collective, should then seek a better one and avail itself of its new collective's knowledge, rather than abandon the search for perfection.



Where is Truthteller?

 

[lucaspa]

sounds more like locutus than lucaspa

The punning was fun! But I've had the implants removed now. Just that residual buzzing in my head ...

 

[flyer]

Why even argument with young earthers? It is obvious that they will never the believe scientific fact.

 

[Michali]

Why even argument with young earthers? It is obvious that they will never the believe scientific fact.

It's obviously considered fun. They never fail to be responded to, even though they generally say nothing constructive.

 

[AV1611VET]

To do anything of a practical nature requires no belief in the long ages.

 

[Jazer]

If you believe in a miraculous Creation, they say, well, it could have been last Tuesday, and God would have created everything with an illusion of age, therefore God would be a deceiver. A variant of this argument is that He then deceived the world by making it look like it's billions of years old.

Time is relative. Einstein made that very clear and so does the Bible. At the speed of light there is no time. Some say God is pure energy, so for God time does not exist. How old is the universe? 13.9 Billion years. When did the age or era we live in begin? 12,900 years ago. What does the Bible say? This is the end of the 13 day. So a day can be 1000 years and a day can be a billion years. It depends on your perspective and your viewpoint.

 

[Jazer]

They reinvent the wheel.

The wheel did not change for 4,000 years it remained the same. When they decided to reinvent the wheel, change came very fast. In this case necessity is the mother of invention. Bicycles, tractors, trucks and cars needed a better tire, so they invented one. So where is the theory that change is suppose to be slow and gradual over time?

 

[dlamberth]

To do anything of a practical nature requires no belief in the long ages.

The oil companies would disagree in a major way with you. All of their science on where to look for oil is completely dependent upon a very old earth geology.

.