Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: How can Science for Speciation explain the diversity of life?

Expand Messages
  • D R Lindberg
    ... the diversity of life? ... Lee ... Perhaps you should not put so much faith in the infallibility of those you quote. What is Johnson s explanation as to
    Message 1 of 320 , May 4, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...>
      wrote:
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: D R Lindberg
      > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 11:12 AM
      > Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: How can Science for Speciation explain
      the diversity of life?
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" lappleto@
      > wrote:
      > >
      >
      > >
      > > "Darwin could offer no credible theory for how life could have
      > emerged naturally from non-living chemicals." (The Case for Faith,
      Lee
      > Strobel,2000, p.251)
      > >
      > DRL: He wasn't trying to.
      >
      >
      >
      > LA> But surely you know of his "Warm little Pond" theory?
      >
      > -------------------
      >
      > "Speculation about prebiological evolution began to appear
      > as soon as THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES had made its impact, with
      > Darwin's "German Bulldog" Ernst Haeckel taking the leading
      > role at first. Darwin himself made a famous contribution to
      > the field in an 1971 letter:
      >
      > "It is often said that all the conditions for the
      > first production of a living organism are now present,
      > which could ever have been present. But if (and oh!
      > what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little
      > pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphate salts,
      > lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein
      > compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still
      > more complex changes, at the present day such matter
      > would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would
      > not have been the case before living creatures were
      > formed."
      >
      > (Darwin on Trial, Phillip E. Johnson, 1991. page.101.)
      >


      Perhaps you should not put so much faith in the infallibility of those
      you quote. What is Johnson's explanation as to how Darwin was able to
      write a letter in 1971 when he died in 1882? Or does Johnson think that
      Darwin rose from the dead?

      Is that your faith as well?

      But actually, your quotation proves my point. Darwin was SPECULATING
      here. He had no theory about the beginning of life.

      Just as people speculated about going to the moon hundreds of years
      before anyone had the slightest idea of how it might actually be
      possible to do so. (Suggestions included harnessing a huge number of
      geese to give you a tow.)

      Cheers!







      "The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain
      exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit
      publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's
      public marks of the covenant; baptism and holy communion; must be denied
      citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel." -- Gary North -
      Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism, Tyler, TX: Institute for
      Christian Economics, 1989, p. 87





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Charles Palm
      Gluadys: How does ID help us know that a scrabble tile is designed and not a product of natural process? It is certainly not on the grounds of complexity,
      Message 320 of 320 , Oct 19, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Gluadys: How does ID help us know that a scrabble tile is designed and not
        a product of natural process? It is certainly not on the grounds of
        complexity, specified or not.

        Charles P: Evolution is easily recognized without knowing anything about
        "The Evolutioner". Natural selection is easily recognized without knowing
        anything about "The Natural Selector". Design is easily recognized without
        knowing anything about "The Designer".

        Perry Marshall: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/incompleteness/ G�del�s
        Incompleteness Theorem says: �Anything you can draw a circle around cannot
        explain itself without referring to something outside the circle �
        something you have to assume but cannot prove.�

        Science: http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position1.htm Science, by
        definition, is a method of learning about the natural universe by asking
        questions in such a way that they can be answered empirically and
        verifiably. If a question cannot be framed so that the answer can be
        tested, and the test results can be reproduced by others, then it is not
        science.

        Charles P: Evolution is inside the circle. Natural selection is inside
        the circle. Design is inside the circle. All three are easily recognized
        by the average reader without having to debate definitions. All three can
        can't explain themselves without referring to something outside the circle
        -- something we have to assume but can't prove.

        James A Shapiro: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29849 As
        I like to repeat, if Newton could not get it right, what hope is there
        for the rest of us? Vannevar Bush wrote that science is an
        "endless frontier." We never get final answers. But then, we never run out
        of fascinating questions to ask.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.