|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,765 Year: 4,022/9,624 Month: 893/974 Week: 220/286 Day: 27/109 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Darwin- would he have changed his theory? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4153 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
And, more recently, many ancient civilizations are being discovered which account for both the "myths" of Atlantis and Noah's flood.
As the idea of the flood has been destroyed more times that I can remember on this board - if you have something new to add - please let us know what it is. Can you name those ancient civilizations? If there is enought "meat" we could start a seperate thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Presumably you mean before Anton Van Leeuwenhoek who died before Darwin was even born ? Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, Father of Microbiology
Anton Van Leeuwenhoek was the first to see and describe bacteria (1674), yeast plants, the teeming life in a drop of water, and the circulation of blood corpuscles in capillaries
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
Darwin did deal with macroscopic complex systems, namely the mammalian eye. He was amazed at the complexity of the organ, but he found that every step of eye evolution was present in living organisms, starting with a photosensitive spot right up to a lensed eye with a retina. He felt that evolution does address complexity, and explains it well in that evolution would add layers to already existing systems, therefore building up complexity over time. I could see a flukishly complex organ evolving once or twice, but 35 seperate times, as is the number which I've heard quoted? A similar deal with limbs as well. Not to say that this invalidates Darwin's theory, but it certainly makes it more difficult.........because irreducibly compex systems can't be accounted for entirely by natural selection......it would have to be largely on luck that they evolved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
As the idea of the flood has been destroyed more times that I can remember on this board - if you have something new to add - please let us know what it is. The melting of the glaciers at the end of the ice age caused world wide flooding. Some recent discoveries lead some (non-theistic) people to believe that the world's first civilzations existed at that time. I'll elaborate in a bit, if you like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
PaulK, I've always been taught that it was Pasteur that had discovered microscopic life, and that the idea of spontaneous generation was common place in Darwin's time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4153 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: please do - if you could point me towards the scientific journals in which this research is reported I would be very interested.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Well if you were taught that microscopic life was first discovered by Pasteur you were taught incorrectly. The material I quoted is not even obscure knowledge - we are after all talking about the man famous as the inventor of the microscope.
Pasteur's discovery was that microscopic life was the CAUSE of decay and not, as some believed, a product of it. I hope you can understand that the very existence of such a controversy requires the knowledge of microscopic life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
I saw documentaries on them on the Science Channel........I'd have to imagine there's stuff online about it too though. There are speculations that the Jamon people, who were the ancestors of the Japanese, were actually civilized themselves. There's also believed to be an under-water city built in what was once the Indus valley.......but then was later flooded during the glacial melting.
But most convincing of all are the accounts of a man who believes that Atlantis was actually an ancient Meso-American civilization.......that guy had a TON of proof for his claim, such as the fact that it's geographically west of Greece (as Plato claimed), that the Alto-Plano area of South America is the only area in tyhe world that matches Plato's description of Atlantis' geography, Plato names orichalcon (a natural ore of part gold and part copper) as being mined in Atlantis, and the Alto-Plano region is the only area in the world where orichalcon is found, anthropological proof that the boats the Meso-Americans had at the time could have traversed the Atlantis, etc., etc. I'm suprised his theory is even still in debate which as much evidence seems to match up with it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
PaulK, still, spontaneous generation of life was an assumed fact in Darwin's day, and the level of complexity of microbes was not known.......two points which hurt his theory even today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
Oh, and Charles, the Black Sea was a lake with inhabitants that lived by it before the glacial meltings.......I'm frankly suprised that the idea of glacial meltings being the world wide flood spoken of Biblically hasn't been proposed before, as it's a universally accepted instance of world wide flooding which could have at least been handed down in oral tradition.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Actually I recognise this, it's Graham Hancock's latest.
I am afraid that the best that can be said of it is that it is less nutty than the earlier ideas he has put forward. That there were inhabited areas that were flooded by the end of the Ice Age is well known. That Hancock's civilisation existed there is almost certainly false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
Which one's Hancock, the Jamon and Indus Valley guy (who had some interesting, but not overwhelming evidence for his claims) or the Atlantis guy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Darwin's theory speaks against spontaneous generation. It is directly against the older versions which had even mice coming into existence, and even against insects (the latter was disproven by Redi in 1668). Even the idea finally laid to rest by Pasteur had been challenged by Spallanzani in 1799. Nor did Darwin rely on the ideas of spontaneous generation disproven by Pasteur.
Just a moment... Indeed, Pasteur's discovery did not hurt Darwin's ideas at all - it supported them. Common descent relies on life originating on no more than a few occasions - spontaneous generation strongly denies that. It is creationists who propose numerous seperate origins of life, not evolutionary scientists. As for the complexity issue that, too does not hurt Darwin's theory significantly. After all, Darwin's theory deals with how life changes over time - not with how the first life came to be. Knowing the complexity of bacteria might have made the view that God created the first simple life appear more plausible at the time - but Darwin did not try to argue against that in On The Origin of Species
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6501 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: That would be news to the people who study the Greek island of Santorin otherwise known as Thira where the ancient ruins of Akrotiri are. That was supposed to be Atlantis, an active NON-MESO AMERICAN culture, which was destroyed by a tsunami...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
How exactly do you think the complexity of microrganisms hurts Darwin's theory? I believe the nature of complexity found in them strongly supports his theory.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024