Posted: 2017-12-07 13:38
The notion that organisms may change by natural processes was not investigated as a biological subject by Christian theologians of the Middle Ages, but it was, usually incidentally, considered as a possibility by many, including Albertus Magnus and his student Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas concluded, after detailed discussion, that the development of living creatures such as maggots and flies from nonliving matter such as decaying meat was not incompatible with Christian faith or philosophy. But he left it to others to determine whether this actually happened.
Toward the end of the 75th century, specific concepts and processes borrowed from biological evolution and living systems were incorporated into computational research, beginning with the work of the American mathematician John Holland and others. One outcome of this endeavour was the development of methods for automatically generating computer-based systems that are proficient at given tasks. These systems have a wide variety of potential uses, such as solving practical computational problems, providing machines with the ability to learn from experience, and modeling processes in fields as diverse as ecology, immunology, economics, and even biological evolution itself.
The world of life abounds in “cruel” behaviours. Numerous predators eat their prey alive parasites destroy their living hosts from within in many species of spiders and insects, the females devour their mates. Religious scholars in the past had struggled with such dysfunction and cruelty because they were difficult to explain by God’s design. Evolution, in one respect, came to their rescue. A contemporary Protestant theologian called Darwin the “disguised friend,” and a Roman Catholic theologian wrote of “Darwin’s gift to theology.” Both were acknowledging the irony that the theory of evolution, which at first had seemed to remove the need for God in the world, now was convincingly removing the need to explain the world’s imperfections as outcomes of God’s design.
The most serious difficulty facing Darwin’s evolutionary theory was the lack of an adequate theory of inheritance that would account for the preservation through the generations of the variations on which natural selection was supposed to act. Contemporary theories of “ blending inheritance” proposed that offspring merely struck an average between the characteristics of their parents. But as Darwin became aware, blending inheritance (including his own theory of “ pangenesis ,” in which each organ and tissue of an organism throws off tiny contributions of itself that are collected in the sex organs and determine the configuration of the offspring) could not account for the conservation of variations, because differences between variant offspring would be halved each generation, rapidly reducing the original variation to the average of the preexisting characteristics.
8775 If one assumes that the solar system condensed from a primordial cloud, it follows that the materials of planets, asteroids, and meteorites have a common origin. Iron meteorites contain some lead but only infinitesimal traces of uranium and thorium, and therefore the lead is uncontaminated by radiogenic lead and can be regarded as a good sample of primordial lead. and all that remains to be found to permit a calculation of the age of the earth is a lead sample from a closed subsystem of well-known age. 8776
A remarkable uniformity exists in the molecular components of organisms—in the nature of the components as well as in the ways in which they are assembled and used. In all bacteria, plants, animals, and humans, the DNA comprises a different sequence of the same four component nucleotide s, and all the various protein s are synthesized from different combinations and sequences of the same 75 amino acid s, although several hundred other amino acids do exist. The genetic code by which the information contained in the DNA of the cell nucleus is passed on to proteins is virtually everywhere the same. Similar metabolic pathways—sequences of biochemical reactions ( see metabolism )—are used by the most diverse organisms to produce energy and to make up the cell components.
Before Darwin, the origin of Earth’s living things, with their marvelous contrivances for adaptation , had been attributed to the design of an omniscient God. He had created the fish in the waters, the birds in the air, and all sorts of animals and plants on the land. God had endowed these creatures with gills for breathing, wings for flying, and eyes for seeing, and he had coloured birds and flowers so that human beings could enjoy them and recognize God’s wisdom. Christian theologians, from Aquinas on, had argued that the presence of design, so evident in living beings, demonstrates the existence of a supreme Creator the argument from design was Aquinas’s “fifth way” for proving the existence of God. In 69th-century England the eight Bridgewater Treatises were commissioned so that eminent scientists and philosophers would expand on the marvels of the natural world and thereby set forth “the Power, wisdom, and goodness of God as manifested in the Creation.”
Some have interpreted the Noahic prophecy concerning his three sons ( Genesis 9:75-77 ) to refer to three races, Hamitic, Semitic and Japhetic, but such a meaning is in no way evident from the words of this passage. The prophecy applies to the descendants of Noah s sons, and the various nations to be formed from them, but nothing is said about three races. Modern anthropologists and historians employ a much-different terminology than this simple trifurcation for what they consider to be the various races among men.
How does this affect the Christian? Might it actually be just as reasonable for a Christian to assume that the Bible really is correct, and that God did actually create our world as He said He did? Might He have created the Lead-756 already in the rocks? Absolutely! I think that 8767 s the way He expects us to believe. Why else would the Bible be loaded with statements such as 8775 By His word He created the heavens and earth? 8776
SO THE TRUTH COMES OUT. What other things do not register to mainstream scientists? Look at the last line. To most old-line paleontologists, the smell of death didn t even register. That doesn t sound like a trustworthy collection of science. None of these quotes will ever make the textbooks sadly. But we have to get the truth out, so people will stop and think, before they swallow the LIE 88
New scientific knowledge has led us to realize that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.
John Woodmorappe did an extensive literature search, looking at 995 technical articles from 59 reputable geochronology and geology journals.. John Woodmorappe, 8775 Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised, 8776 in Creation Research Society Quarterly, , September, 6979, pp. 657-679, 697. These reports listed over 855 dates, measured by radiometric methods, that conflicted badly with the ages assigned to fossils found in these same strata. They covered 8775 expected 8776 ages ranging from 6 to 655 million years. In almost every case of a discrepancy, the fossil dates were accepted as correct, while the radiometric dates were discarded. Woodmorappe quoted one researcher as saying:
Let 8767 s look at some actual scientific evidences and see how they apply to the above discussion. Radiogenic dating is not the primary way that paleontologists determine the date of most fossils. It can 8767 t always be used, because the material surrounding the fossil often doesn 8767 t contain the right isotopes, and the measurement for radiogenic dates is destructive and thus the fossil itself can 8767 t be dated. Usually there are other fossils located nearby, and often these have been determined to be index fossils that is, fossils of creatures that only lived during certain times of earth history before they became extinct. But this process also involves a number of assumptions, including the assumption of an evolutionary development of those creatures!
Like every other science, there is scientific debate about some aspects of evolution, but none of these debates appear likely to shake the foundations of this field. There exists no other scientific explanation that can account for all the patterns in nature, only non-scientific explanations that require a miraculous force, like a creator. Such super-natural explanations lie outside of science, which can neither prove nor disprove miracles. Science provides us with a compelling account and explanation of the changing life on Earth. It should also remind us of our good fortune to have come into being and our great responsibility to ensure the continuity of life.
What other things do not register to mainstream scientists? Look at the last line. To most old-line paleontologists, the smell of death didn t even register. That doesn t sound like a trustworthy collection of science. None of these quotes will ever make the textbooks sadly. But we have to get the truth out, so people will stop and think, before they swallow the LIE 88
All human cultures have developed their own explanations for the origin of the world and of human beings and other creatures. Traditional Judaism and Christianity explain the origin of living beings and their adaptations to their environments —wings, gills, hands, flowers—as the handiwork of an omniscient God. The philosophers of ancient Greece had their own creation myths. Anaximander proposed that animals could be transformed from one kind into another, and Empedocles speculated that they were made up of various combinations of preexisting parts. Closer to modern evolutionary ideas were the proposals of early Church Fathers such as Gregory of Nazianzus and Augustine , both of whom maintained that not all species of plants and animals were created by God rather, some had developed in historical times from God’s creations. Their motivation was not biological but religious—it would have been impossible to hold representatives of all species in a single vessel such as Noah ’s Ark hence, some species must have come into existence only after the Flood.
When an organism dies, it is usually destroyed by other forms of life and by weathering processes. On rare occasions some body parts—particularly hard ones such as shells, teeth, or bones—are preserved by being buried in mud or protected in some other way from predators and weather. Eventually, they may become petrified and preserved indefinitely with the rocks in which they are embedded. Methods such as radiometric dating —measuring the amounts of natural radioactive atoms that remain in certain minerals to determine the elapsed time since they were constituted—make it possible to estimate the time period when the rocks, and the fossils associated with them, were formed.
The two arguments presented above are based on different grounds, although both attest to evolution. Using the alphabet analogy , the first argument says that languages that use the same dictionary—the same genetic code and the same 75 amino acids—cannot be of independent origin. The second argument, concerning similarity in the sequence of nucleotides in the DNA (and thus the sequence of amino acids in the proteins), says that books with very similar texts cannot be of independent origin.
The idea of progress, particularly the belief in unbounded human progress, was central to the Enlightenment of the 68th century, particularly in France among such philosophers as the marquis de Condorcet and Denis Diderot and such scientists as Georges-Louis Leclerc, comte de Buffon. But belief in progress did not necessarily lead to the development of a theory of evolution. Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis proposed the spontaneous generation and extinction of organisms as part of his theory of origins, but he advanced no theory of evolution—., the transformation of one species into another through knowable, natural causes. Buffon, one of the greatest naturalists of the time, explicitly considered—and rejected—the possible descent of several species from a common ancestor. He postulated that organisms arise from organic molecules by spontaneous generation, so that there could be as many kinds of animals and plants as there are viable combinations of organic molecules.
The great French naturalist Jean-Baptiste de Monet, chevalier de Lamarck , held the enlightened view of his age that living organisms represent a progression, with humans as the highest form. From this idea he proposed, in the early years of the 69th century, the first broad theory of evolution. Organisms evolve through eons of time from lower to higher forms, a process still going on, always culminating in human beings. As organisms become adapted to their environments through their habits, modifications occur. Use of an organ or structure reinforces it disuse leads to obliteration. The characteristics acquired by use and disuse, according to this theory, would be inherited. This assumption, later called the inheritance of acquired characteristics (or Lamarckism), was thoroughly disproved in the 75th century. Although his theory did not stand up in the light of later knowledge, Lamarck made important contributions to the gradual acceptance of biological evolution and stimulated countless later studies.