The View From 1776

Darwin Dashed

Newer discoveries dig an even deeper hole for simplistic faith in Darwin’s unprovable hypothesis.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/26 at 11:51 PM
  1. "Everything was produced by Nothing": a great new book by Ray Comfort, accurately requires greater blind faith than humanly possible...
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  09/28  at  09:07 AM
  2. The Biblical account of Genesis is looking better and better! However, with so many opposing the Biblical explanation, and Darwin's theories so incomplete, why isn't an "alien explanation" more frequently proposed?

    It is conceivable that living beings somewhere else in the universe visited the Earth (in Cambrian or later times?) and messed around with living forms and their own DNA to create humans, or at least human ancestors. It may be far fetched, but it is as conceivable as Darwinian theory.

    I have heard of this alien explanation but it is rarely given much press. A good friend of mine directed me to some books by Zacharia Sitchin called "The Earth Chronicles" which purportedly "prove" the ancient role of the Anunnaki, "those Who From Heaven to Earth Came." Of course, if there is truth to that, it could simply buttress the biblical explanation, for the "visitors" may have been a heavenly host, intent on Creation, not aliens from another planet as we think of them?
    Posted by bill greene  on  09/28  at  11:08 AM
  3. Bill:

    The problem with the extraterrestrial idea is that it leads to an infinite regression. If life came from somewhere else, how did it originate there? As Aristotle (who, I know, is not one of your favorite characters) pointed out long ago, there has ultimately to be an Unmoved Mover outside our universe.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/28  at  11:45 AM
  4. Excellent point, but of course there is no prime mover under Darwin's theory either, so the exraterrestrial idea can be equated as at least as plausible as the Darwinian concept. I believe my proposition is not so much to solve the issue as to highlight the deficiencies of Darwin when applied to humans.

    BTW, I do admire Aristotle because he devoted much of his time to hard sciences, zoolological classifications, examination of past governmental structures, and the study and application of logic. For those practical efforts he avoids being an exclusively abstract intellectual and for that reason I believe many others admire him over Plato.
    Posted by bill greene  on  09/28  at  03:13 PM
  5. The post says,

    "Since 1859, however, many Precambrian fossils have been found, including microfossils of single-celled bacteria in rocks more than three billion years old."

    I thought the Bible says that the earth was only a couple of thousand years old? Is this evidence to the contrary?
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/28  at  08:31 PM
  6. Mr. Jay:

    I don't believe that the Bible's book of Genesis specifies a fixed number of years. Various theologians had endeavored to work out the time frame using the generations listed in the Old Testament, coming up with estimates of several thousand years.

    Genesis lists seven days. Interestingly, by the calculations of some physicists, the intense gravitational density at the time of the putative Big Bang would have slowed time, as we perceive its passage, so much that most of the creation of the universe would, from a human viewpoint, appear to have taken place in seven days.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/29  at  02:21 AM
  7. Two words: Punctuated Equilibrium (abbeviated Punc-E or PE).

    The idea is over 37 years old.

    Bishop Usher said a little over 6K years.
    The Hebrew calendar says something like 5770 years 11 days and counting, but weasels on the lengths of the prehistorical days (human measures vs. HaShem's measures).
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/29  at  09:57 AM
  8. Yes - Darwin's hypothesis has gaping holes in it. The most plausible explanation to plug some of those holes was gene networking in Greg Bear's novel "Darwin's Radio".
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/30  at  08:08 AM
  9. Did the Colorado River erode the Grand Canyon through solid rock in 6,000 years?
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/30  at  02:57 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.