Darwin was wrong

[Dale]

Darwin claims evolution is the "Origin of Species"

evolution MAY be the "Variation of Species" but not the "Origin of Species"

abiogenesis, life from no life, might be the "Origin of Species" if you
are not a creationist

biogenesis, life from life, might be the "Origin of Species" if you are
a creationist

the word "Origin" fits more with beginning and genesis than evolution

yes, this is a matter of semantics ...

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Mr. B1ack]

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 00:59:23 -0400, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>Darwin claims evolution is the "Origin of Species"
>
>evolution MAY be the "Variation of Species" but not the "Origin of Species"

Yet another who doesn't understand the material ...

[J. J. Lodder]

Meaningful semantics must be based on understanding,

Jan

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Friday, 24 April 2015 06:00:02 UTC+1, Dale wrote:
> Darwin claims evolution is the "Origin of Species"

> evolution MAY be the "Variation of Species" but not the "Origin of Species"
>
> abiogenesis, life from no life, might be the "Origin of Species" if you
> are not a creationist

You do realise, that the emergence of a "New Species", is NOT, the emergence of "Life".

So yes, each "New Species" --->(Origin thereof), is via the result of evolution.

> biogenesis, life from life, might be the "Origin of Species" if you are
> a creationist

And like ALL Creationists, they become the paradox by their very existance.

How can you have a logical person, whose core belief is that "Life ONLY comes from life", created by a "Life/God, that came from Nothing"?.

[Chris Thompson]

Wow.

Dale, after all this time you should have a better grip on it.

Abiogenesis is exactly what's described in Genesis- life from dust, right?

Abiogenesis is also the origin of the first life in the scientific
arena, just minus the magic poofing.

But a species can also have its origin in another species. Did coyotes
get poofed into existence from nonliving material, or did they evolve
from wolves? If they evolved from wolves then Darwin got it right.

Chris

[RonO]

QUOTE from the Origin of Species:
There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into
one: and that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the
fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most
beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.
END QUOTE:

This is the conclusion of the book. Go to the last page and check it
out. Even Darwin understood the difference between biological evolution
and abiogenesis. You should try to understand the difference.

Ron Okimoto

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Friday, 24 April 2015 12:15:01 UTC+1, Ron O wrote:
> On 4/23/2015 11:59 PM, Dale wrote:
> > Darwin claims evolution is the "Origin of Species"

> QUOTE from the Origin of Species:
> There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
> having been originally breathed by the Creator

K, I'm gonna stop you here.

Darwin, was brought up religious, he lived in a community of religious "LOONBALLS", and was so torn apart between what he had discovered by pure thought and reason & the loonballs he was surrounded by.

That he buried his ideas for decades.

Only after his daughters death, did he find the anger to publish.

Pun incoming -----> Thank God he did.

[chris thompson]

In fact, he was sitting on it because of his wife, who was a devout Anglican. But when he was about to be scooped by A.R. Wallace, he published.

Chris

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

LoonBall, borrow me your ball.

Amen.

[jillery]

And without the help and encouragement of Darwin's friends and
associates, particularly Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker, it's
possible advocates of evolution would now be called Wallacysts.

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Friday, 24 April 2015 13:55:01 UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 04:57:05 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson

> it's possible advocates of evolution would now be called Wallacysts.

I prefer to call us free, but if you wish to join somethin, I advise against cults.

[Kalkidas]

"Dale" <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote in message
news:8d984j....@news.alt.net...

Darwin was wrong, because he did not know that matter comes from life, not
life from matter. Those who have not surrendered to the Lord always make
this mistake. It's classic ignorance.

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Friday, 24 April 2015 14:50:01 UTC+1, Kalkidas wrote:

> Darwin was wrong, because he did not know that matter comes from life,

Wow, I'm suprised you even have a concept of "matter".

So this "life", before matter.

It existed before Matter? Yes?

It created matter? Yes?

It is all knowing, all foreseeing? Yes?

Then it must have created "Matter", at its creation.

So logically, What existed *BEFORE* this *LIFE*, you speak of?

> not life from matter. Those who have not surrendered to the Lord always make
> this mistake. It's classic ignorance.

"Lord", I do believe you just showed your hand.

You are are descended from the Ojibwe, but you are ashamed, that you now live in the Bible Belt.

[Glenn]

"Chris Thompson" <the_th...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:7tCdnSJekfESlKfI...@earthlink.com...

Darwin magically poofed them into existence.

[chris thompson]

Take things personal much?

Chris

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 00:59:23 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

Partially. But you've misconstrued the meaning of "origin of
species" as used by Darwin, which was that species evolve
from other species. Abiogenesis is a separate subject, even
though the same word (origin) is appropriate for both.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 06:48:31 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub>:

>
>"Dale" <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote in message
>news:8d984j....@news.alt.net...
>> Darwin claims evolution is the "Origin of Species"
>>
>> evolution MAY be the "Variation of Species" but not the "Origin of
>> Species"
>>
>> abiogenesis, life from no life, might be the "Origin of Species" if you
>> are not a creationist
>>
>> biogenesis, life from life, might be the "Origin of Species" if you are a
>> creationist
>>
>> the word "Origin" fits more with beginning and genesis than evolution
>>
>> yes, this is a matter of semantics ...

>Darwin was wrong, because he did not know that matter comes from life, not
>life from matter.

Darwin had little or nothing to say about abiogenesis; his
work involved "life from life", the descent of species from
existing species.

> Those who have not surrendered to the Lord always make
>this mistake. It's classic ignorance.

So Darwin's belief in God (reaffirmed by him as late as
1879; although he apparently rejected Christianity much
earlier) was ignorant? OK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/09/did_darwin_believe_in_god.html

Try to not quotemine if you address any of the material
included in those articles.

[Mitchell Coffey]

Darwin's did not come from a family of religious extremists; exactly
what community of "loonballs" do you refer to?

Mitchell Coffey

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Friday, 24 April 2015 19:49:59 UTC+1, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

> Darwin did not come from a family of religious extremists; exactly

> what community of "loonballs" do you refer to?

Everyone surrounding him.

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

That was my way of agreeing with you.

Loonball = Creationists/anybody, who can't see past their nose.

Ball = Terminology.

Can I borrow your ball?

Can I borrow a terminology from your edict.


Amen. - The term I borrowed.

[Erik Simpson]

Sounds like somebody's up past their bedtime.

[lucaspa]

On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 7:25:00 AM UTC-4, pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

I am afraid you are mistaken. Darwin's grandfather was atheist. His father was mostly agnostic.

He did not "bury" his work. And certainly not because of religion. Instead, the prevailing theory was Special Creation and Darwin knew (unlike Ed Conrad) that he would need lots of compelling data to overturn it. He had seen what the response had been to the book Vestiges of Creation. So he kept compiling data for a truly massive work.

He was pushed into publication not by anger, but because he was scooped by Russel Wallace. Wallace sent Darwin a paper he was working on that spelled out evolution and natural selection just as Darwin had been working on for 20 years. Wallace wanted Darwin's opinion on it and help in getting it presented to one of the British scientific societies. Losing priority was the motive for Darwin to write out his "short work" that became Origin of Species. Please read Desmond and Moore's exhaustive biography "Darwin". (Darwin appealed to Lyell and Hooker for help in solving his moral and ethical dilemma. The solution was to present a short sketch of evolution by Darwin that he had written many years previously AND Wallace's paper to the Linnean Society at the same time. Darwin was absent: he was at his son's funeral.)

Darwin always said that, at the time he wrote Origin, he was not Christian but was a theist. It was only later that he went more and more toward agnosticism. But Darwin NEVER was an atheist. Chapter 20 in the biography.

Darwin always maintained that evolution was compatible with Judeo-Christianity. Today we would call him a theistic evolutionist. The quote you made is one of 2 that Darwin kept in all the editions of Origin. The other quote shows more how he thought of evolution and religion. It is a page before the quote on abiogenesis:

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species,pg. 449.

That term "secondary causes" is a religious term, not a scientific one. You might want to look it up. I also suggest you look at the Fontispiece in Origin, because that also spells out how Darwin thought evolution related to religion.

Darwin was not an atheist, nor does accepting evolution mean you have to become an atheist.

[lucaspa]

On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 5:10:02 AM UTC-4, pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> On Friday, 24 April 2015 06:00:02 UTC+1, Dale wrote:

> How can you have a logical person, whose core belief is that "Life ONLY comes from life", created by a "Life/God, that came from Nothing"?.

Dale is wrong for several reasons, which I addressed when he put the same post on alt.creationism.

However, this too is wrong. Think about the first law of thermodynamics: matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change form.

Then how do you get a universe of matter and energy? After all, we say the universe came from "Nothing", don't we?

The answer for both is the statements apply only WITHIN the universe, not to getting a universe to begin with. So, WITHIN the universe, matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Once you have life, only life can beget life, but that there are no processes within the universe to get life from non-life.

The problem with that last sentence is not the logic, but the premise. Yes, there are processes within the universe that can take non-living chemicals and make a living organism. Those processes are called "chemistry".
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

[Mr. B1ack]

Words can be arranged in all sorts of ways to convey
facts and meaning .... however because you CAN
create a particular arrangement in no way causes
the ascribed fact or meaning to suddenly pop into
existence. The notion that they do harkens back to
the days where magic "spells" were assumed to
actually make things happen.

Of course in this case, I don't think the author intended
to delve deeply into words and meaning ... he simply
doesn't understand how 'variation' - taken far enough -
in combination with small mutations can actually yeild
distinct species. It *is* impressive how far 'variation'
can be pushed sometimes *without* actually resulting
in speciation - look at the vast number of phenotypes
we've created with dogs and cats.

No doubt there is a vast range of possible variations
hidden behind methylation in most species genomes ...
a billion-year genetic legacy ... a survival 'toolbox' that
can be opened to help cope with serious environmental
or situational alterations.

But it's not usually enough to create a bona-fide new
species. Other mutation-generating factors must be
involved as well - natural radiation, chemical exposure
and just some random "oops!" factors.

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

Abiogenesis is not a greater mystery than a god creator. If we cannot
explain the process of abiogenesis but as an abstraction, god is not any
easier. You cannot explain god in rational terms either. What sense makes
a god living alone eternally for suddenly to create this monster of
universe? How can you explain this in rational terms? If god wanted to
make a planet for us to be happy he had not succeed and make a lot shit
living beings and other hazards that would make human life miserable.
For those that invented the story of genesis, life was pretty simple,
even if it do not explain some complexities of life in this planet,
simply because they ignored them.
Then, if god pretended to communicate with humans for any concrete purpose
like to pray to him and make animal sacrifices... it does not make any
sense that he permitted so many "fake gods" to exist. But even if god
pretended of us to make sacrifices and to pray to him... it does not make
any sense either. It is absurd that an infinite god would had need of
us to pray to him, and to ask him for favors. Totally absurd.
It is also absurd, that if god pretended only to make a home planet for
humans it would had made a monstrous universe of more 10^20 galaxies.

For our part, the position of science is rather modest: first life come
out from some molecules of matter by ignored processes, of which we only
have a very vague idea. This argument is relative harmony with the
state of our ignorance that is... immense... or as Einstein said, "there
only two things that are infinity, the universe and human stupidity. But
I am not sure the universe is infinity."

What is the argument to explain that only a handful of Jews had contact
with the only "true god" while the rest of humans of this planet were
worshiping false gods? It is absurd, if god were a being bent to
communicate with the humans.
What sort of god chooses a bunch of sheep herders as their chosen people?
Do this makes to you any sense?
Your attitude is the typical of a mental retarded with very scant signs
of rational thinking. What are you really doing in this site?
Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

religious extremists are always a little fraction of the population.
Most people were discreetly religious, for in those times you could
not brag of being an unbeliever; it could be dangerous for your
health or the integrity or your body.
Because, in England in the 19th century was rather a liberal society,
at least for gentlemen, he was able at last resort to publish his book.

In England were a fanatical religious society, nobody would had dared
to publish his book, and he would had not dared to write it.

That solves the conundrum of why nations are more or less religious. It
is a political instrument of control of people. The degree of control
varies according to several variables. It can be more or less harsh
or even a theocratic tyranny bordering insanity.

Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

tell this story to Ray.

Of course, to become an atheist we only need to study the existence of
other religions. Unless we are pantheists, that takes out all the meaning
of ordinary religions. A god as a creator that communicate with humans
looks clearly a fraud. A god creator choosing a people and making it
enemy of other people is also a nonsense.
This argument is what made me an atheist when I was 12 years old.

If god wanted to communicate with humans, why most of the population of
the planet ignore the true god? This is a naive question only an adolescent
philosopher can make. Then, to explain that god is love, and that loves
humans, it is also an absurdity that is only mend it by the absurdity of
the existence of Satan.
If you analyze the existence of evil, it does not make any sense a loving
god creator. To solve this problem, the theologians invented the Devil
antagonist of god. In fact, Satan works as counterbalance of the god's
existence. More than a single god it is fact two gods. The good and the
evil gods. Some instead of a trinity we have a divine "Duality".
It is a god in two distinct persons, one is good the other is evil.
Then, you cannot be sure what person of god is going to attack next to you.
Like the ancient Greeks explained the war problems of humans are some
quarrels among the gods, messing in human affairs... Thus in other context
if a severe drought is cause a great famine here or there, it is the work
of the evil god, also call as Satan. When the weather becomes milder and
it rains enough and slow, not excessively it means that the good god is
acting in favor of humans, providing a relive and a new hope of survival.
But if the mild rains become a torrential catastrophe of excessive rain...
it is explain by the evil god that is making a prank to humans, while the
good person of god was entertained sexually with a pretty princess of
another planet in some part of our galaxy. Remember that Zeus was a
horny god that suddenly got in love with a pretty princess here or there.

According to some theology of Ancient Greeks, the cosmos created the gods.
This can make sense, if we think of the cosmos are a product of our fantasy.
Our fantasy created the gods, by means of the words, that are stories.
This idea was captured by the author of John. In John 1:1 "In the beginning
was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god."

It cannot be more clear: our words created the gods.
Eri

[jillery]

Googling the phrase "matter comes from life", the first entry is this
website:

<http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin/>

It includes a number of articles which present arguments similar to
posts to T.O. from anti-evolutionists, specifically, by identifying
the weaknesses, both real and imagined, of darwinists, darwinism,
materialism, and science in general, that somehow shows their
preferred explanation is the correct one.

After some hours looking at websites which Google says relate to my
search phrase, I have come to the conclusion these websites all share
that same characteristic as the first one. Of course, I don't for a
minute assume my search is exhaustive, and continue to cling to a
hope, however futile and forlorn it might be, that somewhere, somehow,
someone believes my search phrase is true *and* understands the need
to present an affirmative argument for their belief, to explain what
they think that phrase actually means, and how they believe it to be
true.

[pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Friday, 24 April 2015 20:30:00 UTC+1, lucaspa wrote:
> On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 5:10:02 AM UTC-4, pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > On Friday, 24 April 2015 06:00:02 UTC+1, Dale wrote:

> > How can you have a logical person, whose core belief is that "Life ONLY
> >comes from life", created by a "Life/God, that came from Nothing"?.

> Dale is wrong for several reasons, which I addressed when he put the same post on alt.creationism.
>
> However, this too is wrong.

I can asure you, that "When I am wrong", you will know it before I do.

> Think about the first law of thermodynamics: matter and energy cannot be
> created or destroyed, but can only change form.

Entropy is wrong. It violates the laws of conservation of energy.

Now how do you want this explained?

1) Entropy as a system exchanging information?
2) Just the information?


Ergo, do you want the matter or information explanation? Both are equivelant.

> Then how do you get a universe of matter and energy? After all, we say the universe came from "Nothing", don't we?

Yes we do.

1) There is no other explanation.
2) You *CANNOT* have *0* information.

An infinate of 0 can be placed in a set.

That is 1 set.

everything else from this point is semantics.

[Kalkidas]

"Leopoldo Perdomo" <leopoldop...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:503cbd61-590f-48e8...@googlegroups.com...

This is a newsgroup on which I have been a regular participant since 1991.
Too bad you had to lapse into insults. Now this is the only reply you'll
ever get from me.

[Dale]

On 04/25/2015 04:54 AM, Leopoldo Perdomo wrote:
> It is absurd that an infinite god would had need of ...

in the pantheistic view, we would automatically be fulfilling those needs

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:13:11 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

So, nothing to add? OK.