The big problem with the book, The Origin of the Species, is that the book has nothing to do with the origin of any species, thus if you read the book, you will learn nothing about species origins. The book should have been titled The evolution of the Species, since that is what is about. But then the average devoted birdwatcher, is not typically a great writer.
Have you read it?
Have you read it?The origin of the species is as relevant to modern DNA analysis and sequencing as a Thomas Edison built light bulb is energy efficient and long-lasting, though that bulb was the greatest invention in the World at the time. Seriously, Darwin's book should be part of a history class, as the rudimentary understanding of evolutionary processes that the book describes, are now historical. Since I am interested in scientific forward thinking, a book titled the origin of the species, that does not even begin to get into the origin of any species at all, is useless, so No. PS. The professors who have, know exactly as much about the real genesis of life, as the kid washing tables in the Burger King....... Though the professors use more cool words, which makes them feel big about their unproven, silly, pond scum theory.
Please, tell us more about your scientific forward thinking.
The big problem with the book, The Origin of the Species, is that the book has nothing to do with the origin of any species, thus if you read the book, you will learn nothing about species origins. The book should have been titled The evolution of the Species, since that is what is about. But then the average devoted birdwatcher, is not typically a great writer.The actual problem with Origin of Species is that people like you have no idea what it means or what it stands for, just as you don't understand the fundamentals of science generally. No one who understands the first thing about Origin of Species could make the inane statements you make about it. You need to go back to square one. You've missed so many crucial lessons in rational thinking that you have become a caricature of scientific ignorance. Lois
Have you read it?The origin of the species is as relevant to modern DNA analysis and sequencing as a Thomas Edison built light bulb is energy efficient and long-lasting, though that bulb was the greatest invention in the World at the time. Seriously, Darwin's book should be part of a history class, as the rudimentary understanding of evolutionary processes that the book describes, are now historical. Since I am interested in scientific forward thinking, a book titled the origin of the species, that does not even begin to get into the origin of any species at all, is useless, so No. PS. The professors who have, know exactly as much about the real genesis of life, as the kid washing tables in the Burger King....... Though the professors use more cool words, which makes them feel big about their unproven, silly, pond scum theory. True, people have improved upon Darwin's ideas since he wrote that book, but you're criticizing Darwin and his writing that book specifically, as a historian would. Besides, trained scientists have to be historians to an extent; I would hazard a wildly random guess that a physicist would have at some point read the actual work of Isaac Newton and Einstein rather than learn only from a second-hand textbook.
The origin of the species is as relevant to modern DNA analysis and sequencing as a Thomas Edison built light bulb is energy efficient and long-lasting, though that bulb was the greatest invention in the World at the time. Seriously, Darwin's book should be part of a history class, as the rudimentary understanding of evolutionary processes that the book describes, are now historical. Since I am interested in scientific forward thinking, a book titled the origin of the species, that does not even begin to get into the origin of any species at all, is useless, so No. PS. The professors who have, know exactly as much about the real genesis of life, as the kid washing tables in the Burger King....... Though the professors use more cool words, which makes them feel big about their unproven, silly, pond scum theory.So you haven't read it. Therefore you have no earthly idea what you are talking about.
Guys, this poster is just “posting for Jesus”. He’s not here for debate. He’s here to score points for himself hoping to get in good with his god and Jesus. Very selfish actually, and I’m sure She and Jesus look down upon that kind of thing.
The big problem with the book, The Origin of the Species, is that the book has nothing to do with the origin of any species, thus if you read the book, you will learn nothing about species origins. The book should have been titled The evolution of the Species, since that is what is about. But then the average devoted birdwatcher, is not typically a great writer.Of course it describes the origins of species: the species that live now. They descend from previous species. How life started he did not know.
Thanks to all the people who are pointing out the troll. I put up a vote for it somewhere in coral star’s dozen or so threads. There is a fine line between “feeding” a troll and “verifying” troll behavior. They don’t always go away when ignored and sometimes you have to be clear that you’re going to keep using the bridge, whether they are living there or not. And besides, they fascinate me, I interact with them a little just to try to figure them out.
The article Darron posted about denialism was interesting, but I can’t quite get on board with never talking to irrational people. The Atheist Experience cable TV show has been doing it for years, and a lot of people who have watched that have converted.
The nastiest trolls lie and cheat to get reactions. I haven’t gotten the impression from coral star that he’s lying.
No, I rarely see the nasty types, and I do avoid those. It’s the ones that seem to be sincere, but don’t know how to have a discussion. They repeat their lines and sometimes call others shameful for not accepting them. They don’t present evidence and don’t seem to know what evidence is or how to present it.
The troll behaviors are opening up old threads or new ones with the same lines but slightly different variations. They might chase others around in other threads. They tell others that they don’t know something, but can’t explain what that is.
Have you read it?The origin of the species is as relevant to modern DNA analysis and sequencing as a Thomas Edison built light bulb is energy efficient and long-lasting, though that bulb was the greatest invention in the World at the time. Seriously, Darwin's book should be part of a history class, as the rudimentary understanding of evolutionary processes that the book describes, are now historical. Since I am interested in scientific forward thinking, a book titled the origin of the species, that does not even begin to get into the origin of any species at all, is useless, so No. PS. The professors who have, know exactly as much about the real genesis of life, as the kid washing tables in the Burger King....... Though the professors use more cool words, which makes them feel big about their unproven, silly, pond scum theory. True, people have improved upon Darwin's ideas since he wrote that book, but you're criticizing Darwin and his writing that book specifically, as a historian would. Besides, trained scientists have to be historians to an extent; I would hazard a wildly random guess that a physicist would have at some point read the actual work of Isaac Newton and Einstein rather than learn only from a second-hand textbook. Evolution was taught to me in a Catholic school in either the fifth or sixth grade, based upon my age, near nothing was actually known about DNA at this time, this would require all text books the be radically updated. Does anyone go to technical school to learn how to repair a victrolla, as Victrollas are obsolete? Could quark theory be taught by a textbook written in the middle 1800's, is quark theory important? I say yes.
Evolution was taught to me in a Catholic school in either the fifth or sixth grade, based upon my age, near nothing was actually known about DNA at this time, this would require all text books the be radically updated. Does anyone go to technical school to learn how to repair a victrolla, as Victrollas are obsolete? Could quark theory be taught by a textbook written in the middle 1800's, is quark theory important? I say yes.Mostly. I'd agree, with the qualification that sound scientific principles don't become obsolete, merely built upon as a foundation of knowledge. I suggest that until very recently, Catholics were not exactly presenting an unbiased view of evolution. When did the Pope proclaim evolution to be valid? A few years ago?
Evolution was taught to me in a Catholic school in either the fifth or sixth grade, based upon my age, near nothing was actually known about DNA at this time, this would require all text books the be radically updated. Does anyone go to technical school to learn how to repair a victrolla, as Victrollas are obsolete? Could quark theory be taught by a textbook written in the middle 1800's, is quark theory important? I say yes.Mostly. I'd agree, with the qualification that sound scientific principles don't become obsolete, merely built upon as a foundation of knowledge. I suggest that until very recently, Catholics were not exactly presenting an unbiased view of evolution. When did the Pope proclaim evolution to be valid? A few years ago? It was in 1950, by Pius XII,less than 100 years after Origin of Species was published. At least the church didn't take as long as it did to admit that maybe the earth revolves around the sun, after all, (500 years) so it's improving a little. However the church fudged as one would expect. Pius said that "there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces." Today, the Church supports theistic evolution(ism), also known as evolutionary creation, although Catholics are free not to believe in any part of evolutionary theory. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution So there you have it, a definite maybe. Better than nothing, I guess. I don't know if the church said that Catholics are free to not believe in any part of the heliocentric theory. Lois
The big problem with the book, The Origin of the Species, is that the book has nothing to do with the origin of any species, thus if you read the book, you will learn nothing about species origins. The book should have been titled The evolution of the Species, since that is what is about...Do you not, even, admit that species have arisen during the course of evolution of life on earth? The best explanation that we have, so far, is that species arise through processes of evolution. (Unless there is some scholarly work about how an intelligent designer, just happens to pop up at a multitude of times, throughout the billions of years of life on our planet, to introduce new species, as per his design.)
Evolution was taught to me in a Catholic school in either the fifth or sixth grade, based upon my age, near nothing was actually known about DNA at this time, this would require all text books the be radically updated. Does anyone go to technical school to learn how to repair a victrolla, as Victrollas are obsolete? Could quark theory be taught by a textbook written in the middle 1800's, is quark theory important? I say yes.Mostly. I'd agree, with the qualification that sound scientific principles don't become obsolete, merely built upon as a foundation of knowledge. I suggest that until very recently, Catholics were not exactly presenting an unbiased view of evolution. When did the Pope proclaim evolution to be valid? A few years ago? All scientific principles, are based upon the available database of information. If the available database is a view from land to the ocean, then the database says that the Earth is flat and that if you sail too far you will fall off, if the database includes a sailing trip around the World, the first observations become obsolete, this does not denote a change in any scientific principle, but a change in human interpretation of those principles. That said, the very first photo, of the curvature of the Earth was actually taken within my lifetime. The interesting thing about the warm pond theory of evolution is that if a scientist, that does not believe in a God, puts the random chemicals together, that will form primitive life, that he or she has demonstrated how life could be created from lifelessness, and has turned themselves into the creator of life from lifelessness. Thus the atheist, can easily be God, as God created the atheist in his image. This enigma, is what drives atheist cookoo....!
The big problem with the book, The Origin of the Species, is that the book has nothing to do with the origin of any species, thus if you read the book, you will learn nothing about species origins. The book should have been titled The evolution of the Species, since that is what is about. But then the average devoted birdwatcher, is not typically a great writer.Of course it describes the origins of species: the species that live now. They descend from previous species. How life started he did not know. I knew you'd come up with a valid response sooner or later. Congratulations. ;) Lois
The big problem with the book, The Origin of the Species, is that the book has nothing to do with the origin of any species, thus if you read the book, you will learn nothing about species origins. The book should have been titled The evolution of the Species, since that is what is about...Do you not, even, admit that species have arisen during the course of evolution of life on earth? The best explanation that we have, so far, is that species arise through processes of evolution. (Unless there is some scholarly work about how an intelligent designer, just happens to pop up at a multitude of times, throughout the billions of years of life on our planet, to introduce new species, as per his design.) Species evolution is a scientific fact, that is as far as we know now, is 100% controlled by the DNA code, that like your computers code, had to be created. Also, if there is an evolutionist, that can demonstrate how a rat turns into a rhino, they are very silent, just as silent as Darwin was on the same topic. The simple fact as we know it now, and was not known when Darwin wrote his book, is that evolution can not happen in the way it is shown to happen, without DNA. If you discover a ship on the bottom of the ocean, it can be inferred that it was put there by a creator for some reason, unless you believe in spontaneous generation of shipwrecks. This works for all intelligently designed things, including you, like it or not.
Species evolution is a scientific fact, that is as far as we know now, is 100% controlled by the DNA code, that like your computers code, had to be created. Also, if there is an evolutionist, that can demonstrate how a rat turns into a rhino, they are very silent, just as silent as Darwin was on the same topic. The simple fact as we know it now, and was not known when Darwin wrote his book, is that evolution can not happen in the way it is shown to happen, without DNA. If you discover a ship on the bottom of the ocean, it can be inferred that it was put there by a creator for some reason, unless you believe in spontaneous generation of shipwrecks. This works for all intelligently designed things, including you, like it or not.You seem to be saying here that Darwin should have inferred intelligent design because he didn't know about DNA. He discovered a mechanism of change yet didn't have an explanation for how it happened at the cellular level. But if he would have done that, he would have been wrong, right? Because we did discover that mechanism. Now we just don't know exactly how life began and might be a little fuzzy on how DNA became what it is. But why should we now infer intelligent design? How do we know we won't be wrong this time?