The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally

My point is that evolution does not explain how chemical reactions can form themselves spontaneously into the types of "miniature factories" that we observe in microscopic systems. We can explain, scientifically, how chemical reactions work, but not how these systems (with all interrelating components in place) were created--surely not step-by-step.

Take away one component, and the whole thing breaks down. A designer, can make an airplane fly. We could never gain an understanding of how the plane was created by studying its individual parts.

Sounds like you swallowed the Bacterial Flagellum myth!

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

Or, if, as most of you seem to, prefer YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

or Google Video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7947864133148073999&q=A+WAR+ON+SCIENCE

Ken Miller talks about the flagellum specifically towards the end of the video.
 
Actually, the "On" was dropped early on:
[/pedant]

And I can find nothing about a 100th anniversary addition anywhere, except of course all those creationist sites that make all the bogus quote claims.

My bad on the title.

The reason you can't find the copy anywhere but creationist sites is the very reason I would be amazed to hear this guy had it in his personal library. I don't think it exists.

And the introduction he attributes to a specific author doesn't exist how he thinks it does. It was written in 1928 and does not say what he thinks it does.
 
My bad on the title.

The reason you can't find the copy anywhere but creationist sites is the very reason I would be amazed to hear this guy had it in his personal library. I don't think it exists.

And the introduction he attributes to a specific author doesn't exist how he thinks it does. It was written in 1928 and does not say what he thinks it does.
Fowl,
His copy very well could have the offending misquote. Ofcourse, it'd have to be scrawled there in purple crayon....
 
1. Please reread my post. Subterranian water...springs of the deep, expelled, land (ocean basins) depressed
2. You are assuming the flood was one of salt water. Oceans gradually grow saltier. I have no problem with fish changing over time to be able to survive in salt water. But their ancestors are still fish, with all the genetic code needed to survive a variety of changing climate and environmental conditions.
3. It rained, plus the springs of the deep broke open
4. Please list a source for where the geologic column in the proper order can be observed. A worldwide flood is not preposterous. We observe much grander spectacles in our own solar system. From moons completely covered by chemical oceans to devestating comet impacts on Jupiter to rings that encircle entire (large) planets. The cataclysm described by the Bible is perfectly conceivable.

Ok...so the floods were of salt water. saltwater fish don't do all that well in fresh water either.

And none of that removes the fact that there just isn't enough water on the planet to flood is sufficently to be considered a "Global Flood" as you and your ilk would have it. A worldwide flood IS preposterous. That's the problem. A localized flood, most of us could buy. But one that simutaneously killed off all the extant human (save 8) and created the Grand Canyon in one fell swoop? Um...no.

Besides, how would you explain the Kennewick man? Or Australopithecus afarensis (aka Lucy)? Both of these remians come prior to your "Global Flood", or even the proposed creation date of 6-10 k years.
 
Are you claiming to have a 100th anniversary copy of "On the Origin of Species" By Darwin from 1959, or are you referring to another book that claims this introduction is in it?


Also, the introduction written by the author generally attributed to by your urban legend was written in 1928.

Keith, Arthur. Introduction to "The origin of species by means of natural selection", by Charles Darwin. London: J.M. Dent, 1928.

But he does NOT say what you think he does.

That introduction, or a revision thereof, continued to be printed in subsequent Everyman Library editions by Dent right through the 1951 edition. However, in 1956, the next Everyman edition came out with a new introduction. (This might plausibly have been considered by the publisher to be something of a centennial edition - since it was the last planned edition prior to the actual centenary - but who knows.)

At any rate, the new introduction was by W.R. Thompson, and while I haven't been able to confirm it first-hand, I think Thompson's essay, not Keith's earlier one, is the better candidate for the origin of that quotation. In fact, I think there's a very decent chance that Thompson's introduction actually contains those words or something close to them. That suspicion is buttressed by the fact that, according to the Cambridge Darwin bibliography, in 1967 some anti-evolution outfit reprinted Thompson's 1956 Origin of Species preface in its entirety as a separate work.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't matter, evolution has been proven to be a factual occurance since that time, if not before.
 
Cover it, yes. Flood it to the tops of the highest mountains, as the Bible alleges, no.

The radius of the earth is 6,378.1km, which gives a volume of about 1.09x1012km3. The volume of the world's oceans is about 1.37x109km3. If you add that to the earth's volume and work backwards for the radius, you get about 6,380km. In other words, without the deep basins, floating all of the world's oceans on top of the Earth would raise the water level by about 2km. Since Mt Everest is 8.85km high, you would not even get a quarter of the way up.

Well done! That's exactly the sort of answer I was hoping for.


2. You are assuming the flood was one of salt water. Oceans gradually grow saltier. I have no problem with fish changing over time to be able to survive in salt water. But their ancestors are still fish, with all the genetic code needed to survive a variety of changing climate and environmental conditions.

How interesting. You have no problem with fish changing over time as an adaptation to their surroundings, but you do have a problem with the rest of the world's species changing over time as an adaptation to their surroundings. Seems you are awfully selective in your beliefs.
 
You are using an example of natural selection within a species...use of existing genetic material, selected by harsh environment. The genetic code contains the information for varied traits. But this is existing genetic information, allowing for variation WITHIN a kind. In the Bible it says that all creatures will multiply AFTER THEIR KIND.

Here, check out this one. They have changed to a different species that can no longer breed with the original. So the bible is wrong. . . again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
 
That introduction, or a revision thereof, continued to be printed in subsequent Everyman Library editions by Dent right through the 1951 edition. However, in 1956, the next Everyman edition came out with a new introduction. (This might plausibly have been considered by the publisher to be something of a centennial edition - since it was the last planned edition prior to the actual centenary - but who knows.)

At any rate, the new introduction was by W.R. Thompson, and while I haven't been able to confirm it first-hand, I think Thompson's essay, not Keith's earlier one, is the better candidate for the origin of that quotation. In fact, I think there's a very decent chance that Thompson's introduction actually contains those words or something close to them. That suspicion is buttressed by the fact that, according to the Cambridge Darwin bibliography, in 1967 some anti-evolution outfit reprinted Thompson's 1956 Origin of Species preface in its entirety as a separate work.

This it?

Not sure if that's the whole of it or not.


ETA: It appears not, and I am not sure I trust the site to be accurate at all upon further review.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't matter, evolution has been proven to be a factual occurance since that time, if not before.

Yeah quote or not, writing the introduction to a book is not peer review, nor is it relevant when it was written at latest 1956, and at earliest 1928.

There is a mountain of evidence to go through since then.


ETA:

However I have a feeling that the quote in question is taken completely out of context. I'd like to see.
 
I asked before and I would appreciate an answer at some point soon please, L2guy: What is a "kind" in your understanding of taxonomy? Be specific with your definition.
 
I asked before and I would appreciate an answer at some point soon please, L2guy: What is a "kind" in your understanding of taxonomy? Be specific with your definition.

Zep, what's the odds he responds with a question asking what stuffing dead animals has to do with evolution?
 
This it?

Not sure if that's the whole of it or not.


ETA: It appears not, and I am not sure I trust the site to be accurate at all upon further review.

It certainly looks like those passages purport to be quoted from the same book preface we were talking about. Without the original, or at least the 1967 reprint, who knows how accurately they're reproduced, I agree.
 
I have no problem with fish changing over time to be able to survive in salt water. But their ancestors are still fish, with all the genetic code needed to survive a variety of changing climate and environmental conditions.

Okay. So you also have no problem with some apes changing over time to be able to survive on the African savannah and eventually turn into us. Hey, we're all mammals, right?
 
2. You are assuming the flood was one of salt water. Oceans gradually grow saltier. I have no problem with fish changing over time to be able to survive in salt water. But their ancestors are still fish, with all the genetic code needed to survive a variety of changing climate and environmental conditions.

So, you are suggesting that all fish have the mechanisms to survive all levels of salinity (between fresh and seawater) as long as the change in salinity is gradual (with a maximum of 40 days between extremes)?

I'm no pisci..., pesky..., pussycat..., fish specialist, but I doubt this very much. I do have half a mind to visit the local acquatic centre to see if I can change the freshwater fish into saltwater fish and vice versa. Look for my name in the "In court" section of the local paper in the weeks and months to come.

Edited because I am dumb
 
How can a frog make it with a half evolved stomach, not yet able to digest, and half evolved reproductive organs, not yet able to reproduce. And even a frog has many other systems operating at once to keep it alive. There isn't convincing evidence that any organism can survive in a half-evolved state...especially with regard to internal organs.
2LifeGuy, I gotta say, from your posting style I expected a much better understanding of the subject than this. By that post you reveal the fact that you know virtually nothing about how evolution is thought to work, and probably not much biology. (high school? middle school?).
You also reveal the fact that when you have read a creationist version of evolution, you haven't stopped to wonder whether it actually is consistent with what evolutionary biology says, and you haven't made an effort to compare the two.
And you must think evolutionary biologists are mind-bogglingly stupid if you imagine they hypothesize that frogs went through an evolutionary stage where their reproductive organs were "half evolved", "not yet able to reproduce" and yet were able to produce offspring to inherit this characteristic. Is that really what you were thinking? My guess is that you weren't really thinking at all about the subject - but you could start now!
 
It certainly looks like those passages purport to be quoted from the same book preface we were talking about. Without the original, or at least the 1967 reprint, who knows how accurately they're reproduced, I agree.

it really doesn't matter anyway, we know that it's not true. evolution has proven to be a factual occurrence
 
My point is that evolution does not explain how chemical reactions can form themselves spontaneously into the types of "miniature factories" that we observe in microscopic systems. We can explain, scientifically, how chemical reactions work, but not how these systems (with all interrelating components in place) were created--surely not step-by-step.

Take away one component, and the whole thing breaks down. A designer, can make an airplane fly. We could never gain an understanding of how the plane was created by studying its individual parts.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB340.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB300.html

The text books I studies at length (years ago!) showed examples of mutation, and mentioned what you have above. But they always pictured the "negative" or harmful mutations...changed in creatures that removed genetic information or scrambled it. I once read the reason why they never showed pictures of positive or helpful mutations...mutations that actually added new features. When I read that reason, it steered me more toward the account of origins in the Bible.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB904.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB920.html

So far, NO positive mutations which benefit a creature with NEW information has ever been observed. That is why they never show a picture of a positive mutation in text books...only negative ones.

Obviously there are observable changes in animals...in breeding programs for example...but selective breeding is making use of features that are already contained in the gene pool.

I bet there is a scientist who will challenge this, but I'm just saying after some research, I have never seen evidence for a true positive mutation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB300.html

Well I disagree. If you analyze the parts of a plane, nothing about that analysis will tell you how the iron or aluminum were screwed together, or who did the fabrication work. You can say, I think these parts just came together, or you can say I think these parts had a designer or manufacturer. The individual parts themselves will not give you the answer...well I think they will...

I don't understand how my TV works, BUT by its nature it was obviously designed. This is a true understanding of the truth.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB340.html

Right, but the context was, if you remove one component from these intricately designed microscopic systems, the system doesn't function. This means the gradual steps of evolution could not have created the system. All of the components would have had to evolve at the same moment...together.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB300.html

I thought evolution states that life moved from simple one-celled organisms more complex, and on eventually to amphibians. To do that there are many internal systems.

How can a frog make it with a half evolved stomach, not yet able to digest, and half evolved reproductive organs, not yet able to reproduce. And even a frog has many other systems operating at once to keep it alive. There isn't convincing evidence that any organism can survive in a half-evolved state...especially with regard to internal organs.

Creation, on the otherhand reflects the power, wisdom and even love of God. The evidence is in the design.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB300.html

You are using an example of natural selection within a species...use of existing genetic material, selected by harsh environment. The genetic code contains the information for varied traits. But this is existing genetic information, allowing for variation WITHIN a kind. In the Bible it says that all creatures will multiply AFTER THEIR KIND. The humans in the Andes are not evolving to a different kind of creature. I, like you, believe in this type of observable, scientific "evolution"--if you wish to call it that. But this is not evidence for a creature evolving into another type, or evidence of man's descent from simpler organisms.

I would recommend for more on evolution that a different thread be initiated to go more into the specifics.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_1.html
 

Back
Top Bottom