A Quick History of Theory: Creationism and Evolution.

A Quick History of Theory: Creationism and Evolution.



Although creationism is not technically a theory in the scientific sense, it is nevertheless held up as such by many uneducated individuals, and as such, is included here.



Creationism is thousands of years-old. It dates from the origination of the Hebrew people. [The author is quite aware of the pre-historical roots of what came to be the Jews, as well as the acquisition and assimilation of cultural myths that accompanied them. However, for the purposes of this essay, the history of creationism begins with the written codification of the Old Testament.]



Creationism is the name given to the belief that the bible literally describes the beginnings of the Universe and all it contains, ver batim. The Universe was created in 6 days, and all the life forms that ever existed were created intact and as a piece, separately, and at the same time.

The history of Creationism, is then, a history of defending this blind belief on faith, with no physical evidence needed.

------------

The history of the Theory of Evolution is little known, but over a hundred years before Charles Darwin published his On Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859, the foundations for it were laid.



In 1758, Carolus Linnaeus, a Swedish Naturalist and firm Creationist, first attempted to classify all species. He placed humans, apes, and monkeys in a single group, Primates, suggesting beyond all Biblical “reason” that humans, apes, and monkeys were all related.



Contemporary with Linnaeus, was the French Naturalist Georges de Buffon. He had been the first to describe gibbons in the literature, and had grown interested in the differences between species. Buffon believed that the two splints on either side of a horse’s leg bone indicated that there had once been three bones present. He spoke of the mutability of species, and although he suggested only the degeneration of one species into another, he was the first to speak of one species actually changing into another, and by implication , that species could exist that were not created at the time of Genesis,



And then, in 1796, Eramus Darwin (grandfather of the famous Darwin), published Zoonomia, in which he suggested that species changed as a direct result of environmental pressures.



This was followed, in 1809, with Zoological Philosophy, by Jean Baptiste de Lamarck.

In it, he suggested a full-blown theory of evolution. He even went so far as to describe a mechanism where by this was accomplished.

He was proven wrong, but Lamarck did succeed in bringing the concept of Evolution into the minds of Scientist everywhere.



Only then came THE Darwin. He spent twenty years researching and polishing his theory before publishing, and a dozen more before his second publication, The Descent of Man.



And the lid on the creationist coffin slammed shut.



Science has been nailing it down ever since.

-----

A thus is the brief history of two “competing” theories; one, appropriately created whole from nothing, and another, which evolved from more than a century of research and painstaking work.





The Author Reserves All Rights

 

xxxxxx

 

Sorry Folks but I was having issues pasting this table in here:

Please check out this link to see if Geckopelli's assertion holds up or now:

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

Naturalist Evolutionists believe the Universe was created too. They just happen to believe unguided 'Blind Chance' created the Planet.

'The Author' is only aware that many other cultures record a tradition of a worldwide cataclysm and the re-birth of humanity.

'The Author' is using his imagination to assume they are 'assimilations' and 'acquisitions' found in Moses account.

There are 'Old Earth' Creationists and 'Young Earth' Creationists.

In either case, it is their belief that the Natural Universe was created by Intelligent Design.
I do not know what you intend to mean by 'All life forms that ever existed' or "Created intact as a Piece".

The understanding is that all 'Kinds' of creatures (incl Humans) were created.
Variations of those kinds were yet to come.

Mr. Non Sequitor,

There would most certainly be physical evidence needed.
For Example: Genesis clearly states that one kind of animal should only reproduce with the same kind of animal.

So... we should not see different species being able to mate and reproduce.

Creationists definately NEED that physical evidence.

------------

He classified them as a type of land animal. Linnaeus can do what he likes. This does not go beyond 'All Biblical Reason' but ... Ok?

Amazing.

Yes, he is definately on to the right idea by theorising and then seeking evidence for THE OPPOSITE OF EVOLUTION.

BTW - Species do not mutate into different species.
Species can select genes (via Natural Selection) from PRE-EXISTING POOLS.

Since this has nothing to do with Evolutionism other than fly in its face - I guess I should applaud De Buffon.

Yes, it was becoming very apparent that Natural Selection works.
Too bad the future Darwin literally GOT IT BACKWARDS.

Errrr... Well theres another 'announcement' from you. Weren't you supposed to tell us why?
Huxley has an opinion why Darwinism became all the rage.. but thats another topic I suppose.

This statement doesnt even make sense, since 'Science' supports Creationism.

-----

Creation Science is, in fact MUCH Older than the recent Evolutionist Theories (of which Darwinism has long since been discarded).

YOU SAID THAT YOURSELF AND EVEN DOCUMENTED THAT IN THIS VERY POST YOU DINGBAT!

I cant begin to tell you how hilarious your 'All Rights Reserved' tagline is!!

Ok just so Im clear:

You entire post can be summed up as followed:

People used to be Creationists until Darwin 'Came Along'.
Then you announce Creationism is 'Dead'.

Weirdly... you do not seem aware that Natural Selection has LONG since been throughly discounted by EVERYONE as a mechanism for Evolutionists Belief system?

You do know that right?

 

You are dumb.

 

Please do not post 'Flames' or posts with no other intention other than to insult other members.

Thanks

 

"Sorry Folks but I was having issues pasting this table in here:

Please check out this link to see if Geckopelli's assertion holds up or now:

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp"


So once more you want me to debate someone who is not here?
That is clear indication that we have suppassed you meger store of knowledge.
That's a start.

But please- I'm not going to waste my time reading a creationist propaganda web site for the pupose of explainning it's fallacy to you.


"Naturalist Evolutionists believe the Universe was created too. They just happen to believe unguided 'Blind Chance' created the Planet."

No, they don't. They "believe" it evolved- as per the evidence.

'The Author' is only aware that many other cultures record a tradition of a worldwide cataclysm and the re-birth of humanity."

Of course they do. All people started out with two things in common- ignorance and the tendency to be human.

"'The Author' is using his imagination to assume they are 'assimilations' and 'acquisitions' found in Moses account."

With this statement, you fall further into the hole of pompus ignorance
Jeez!. Read upon the Jews history before Abraham, would you? Ever her of Sumeria?

"There are 'Old Earth' Creationists and 'Young Earth' Creationists"

Ah- finally something new. Define both, please.

"In either case, it is their belief that the Natural Universe was created by Intelligent Design."

A belief without a single shred of evidence is not to be confused with tentative theory based on myriads of observation.

"I do not know what you intend to mean by 'All life forms that ever existed' or "Created intact as a Piece"."

You repeatedly have claimed that all life was created at once and not subject to change. Was it or wasn't it?

This is the best part:


"Mr. Non Sequitor,

"There would most certainly be physical evidence needed."

So show us. Except you can't. because ther isn't any.

"For Example: Genesis clearly states that one kind of animal should only reproduce with the same kind of animal."

"It's in the bible" is NOT evidence!

"So... we should not see different species being able to mate and reproduce."

Fool! Mules come from horses and donkeys. Tylons aand lygers come form a crossing of tigers and lions. Buffalo can mate with common cattle to produce beefalo.

"Creationists definately NEED... physical evidence."

They certainly do!
To bad they have none.

"He classified them as a type of land animal. Linnaeus can do what he likes. This does not go beyond 'All Biblical Reason' but ... Ok?"

The history of the theory of evolution is what it is. He classified them as primates.
The bible states that man was made in the image of god, yet Linnaeus called us a type of ape.
Good old Linnaeus- a man of faith who wasn't afriad to state the obvious.

"yes, he is definately on to the right idea by theorising and then seeking evidence for THE OPPOSITE OF EVOLUTION."

Fool! the noted sciencetist contributed to an eventual theory of evolution. One did not yet exist, so how could he try to disprove it?

"BTW - Species do not mutate into different species.
Species can select genes (via Natural Selection) from PRE-EXISTING POOLS."

An ignorant and unsubstantiated statement. You are a liar.

"This statement doesnt even make sense, since 'Science' supports Creationism"

You have passed beyond arrogant ignorance. You know nothing of science.
Clearly, you lack the base knowledge required.

"Creation Science is, in fact MUCH Older than the recent Evolutionist Theories (of which Darwinism has long since been discarded).

YOU SAID THAT YOURSELF AND EVEN DOCUMENTED THAT IN THIS VERY POST YOU DINGBAT!"

First, Darwin remains as strong as ever among the educated.
Second- If you think that age begats truth, you are beyond foolish and well into laughable stupidity.

I'm getting embarassed for you.

"I cant begin to tell you how hilarious your 'All Rights Reserved' tagline is!!"

You're a dumb little shit, aren't you?
I am a professional writer.


"Weirdly... you do not seem aware that Natural Selection has LONG since been throughly discounted by EVERYONE as a mechanism for Evolutionists Belief system?"

Once more you show yourself to be not only a liar, but a bad one at that.

You 've lost; to continue is to actively become a loser.

 

Brockton- everything you post is flaming spams.

I'm with tumontico: you are one dumb puppy.

 

Your gonna have to edit that to include Block quoting since its including quotes and replies to quotes.

As near as I can tell.. you are simply stating that new genetic information is produced by Natural Selection?

The word 'Selection' means the next generation is SELECTING.

There is no point in calling me a liar LMAO!
That IS WHAT NATURAL SELECTION MEANS.

Please realise that Natural Selection (in itself) can not and does not provide ANY reason to believe New Genes are created.

In fact.. there is no NEED for 'New' Genes to magically self-appear because the new offspring can choose NEW COMBINATIONS.

But anyway.. here is the part I really love about your post:

You're a dumb little shit, aren't you?
I am a professional writer.

That was CLASSIC!

 

Yea, yea.

Juice is the word, it's the word. it's the word...

No matter the face you present, you'll always be defeated.

Now state a case for creationism, or shut the fuck up, loser.

 

I think Brocktoon is fucking with us. I have never seen such consistent hypocrisy, irrationality, and just plain foolishness.

 

Brockton is the person who holds the record for being banned.

he'll continue to register and repeat his bullshit, even when banned.

He is of no account; but the rest of us must make sure that his ignorance does not go unanswered, least some gullible soul be taken in.

He also post under another name.

Beside the muslims, he is the only other anti-evolution person posting.

Sorry...brockton. But it's time you admit defeat again, and move on.

 

Im curious if anyone here knows anything about 'Darwinism' and why its no longer accepted by modern Evolutionists?

 

Why are my post doubling?

 

This is his usual tactic.

I'm afraid I will no longer be able to post without drawing his spam.

But none of it will ever expound on creationism.

 

This Topic IS about the brief history of "Evolutionism" and Creationism.

The author gave us his opinion about Creationism and some early Creationist Scientists and then 'Introduced' us to Darwin.

Little was said about Darwin and his times, so I thought I would elaborate thanks to some helpful articles found online:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

In his book, Darwin never mentioned the origin of life. The primitive understanding of science in his time rested on the assumption that living things had very simple structures.

Since mediaeval times, spontaneous generation, the theory that non-living matter could come together to form living organisms, had been widely accepted.

It was believed that insects came into existence from leftover bits of food. It was further imagined that mice came into being from wheat. Interesting experiments were conducted to prove this theory. Some wheat was placed on a dirty piece of cloth, and it was believed that mice would emerge in due course.

Louis Pasteur destroyed the belief that life could be created from inanimate substances.

Similarly, the fact that maggots appeared in meat was believed to be evidence for spontaneous generation. However, it was only realized some time later that maggots did not appear in meat spontaneously, but were carried by flies in the form of larvae, invisible to the naked eye.

Even in the period when Darwin's Origin of Species was written, the belief that bacteria could come into existence from inanimate matter was widespread.

However, five years after the publication of Darwin's book, Louis Pasteur announced his results after long studies and experiments, which disproved spontaneous generation, a cornerstone of Darwin's theory. In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."

Advocates of the theory of evolution refused to accept Pasteur's findings for a long time. However, as scientific progress revealed the complex structure of the cell, the idea that life could come into being coincidentally faced an even greater impasse. We shall consider this subject in some detail in this book.
------------------------------------------------
Now i was not even aware the belief that life could develop 'Spontaneously' was ever popular till after Evolutionists began spreading that tale.

To this day the only people I know of who believe complex working lifeforms can spontaneously 'Come into being' by 'accident' are Evolutionists.
Seems the public doesnt even believe that anymore!

Anyway.. back in Darwins Day.. people could be 'forgiven' for believing the BlackSmiths 'Muscles' would be passed on to his Son.
It sounds funny but people believed you could do things to your own body which would 'pass on'.

So here was an interesting and more detailed explanation of Darwins mistaken belief that outside forces made the Genes themselves change
(though he didnt put it that way since he had no knowledge of Genetics and DNA etc)

-------------------------

Another subject that posed a quandary for Darwin's theory was inheritance. At the time when Darwin developed his theory, the question of how living beings transmitted their traits to other generations-that is, how inheritance took place-was not completely understood. That is why the naive belief that inheritance was transmitted through blood was commonly accepted.

Vague beliefs about inheritance led Darwin to base his theory on completely false grounds. Darwin assumed that natural selection was the "mechanism of evolution." Yet one question remained unanswered: How would these "useful traits" be selected and transmitted from one generation to the next? At this point, Darwin embraced the Lamarckian theory, that is, "the inheritance of acquired traits." In his book The Great Evolution Mystery, Gordon R. Taylor, a researcher advocating the theory of evolution, expresses the view that Darwin was heavily influenced by Lamarck:

Lamarckism... is known as the inheritance of acquired characteristics... Darwin himself, as a matter of fact, was inclined to believe that such inheritance occurred and cited the reported case of a man who had lost his fingers and bred sons without fingers... [Darwin] had not, he said, gained a single idea from Lamarck. This was doubly ironical, for Darwin repeatedly toyed with the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics and, if it is so dreadful, it is Darwin who should be denigrated rather than Lamarck... In the 1859 edition of his work, Darwin refers to 'changes of external conditions' causing variation but subsequently these conditions are described as directing variation and cooperating with natural selection in directing it... Every year he attributed more and more to the agency of use or disuse... By 1868 when he published Varieties of Animals and Plants under Domestication he gave a whole series of examples of supposed Lamarckian inheritance: such as a man losing part of his little finger and all his sons being born with deformed little fingers, and boys born with foreskins much reduced in length as a result of generations of circumcision.

[ :O ]
​

However, Lamarck's thesis, as we have seen above, was disproved by the laws of genetic inheritance discovered by the Austrian monk and botanist, Gregor Mendel. The concept of "useful traits" was therefore left unsupported. Genetic laws showed that acquired traits are not passed on, and that genetic inheritance takes place according to certain unchanging laws. These laws supported the view that species remain unchanged. No matter how much the cows that Darwin saw in England's animal fairs bred, the species itself would never change: cows would always remain cows.

The genetic laws discovered by Mendel proved very damaging to the theory of evolution.​

Gregor Mendel announced the laws of genetic inheritance that he discovered as a result of long experiment and observation in a scientific paper published in 1865. But this paper only attracted the attention of the scientific world towards the end of the century. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the truth of these laws had been accepted by the whole scientific community. This was a serious dead-end for Darwin's theory, which tried to base the concept of "useful traits" on Lamarck.

Here we must correct a general misapprehension: Mendel opposed not only Lamarck's model of evolution, but also Darwin's. As the article "Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin," published in the Journal of Heredity, makes clear, "he [Mendel] was familiar with The Origin of Species ...and he was opposed to Darwin's theory; Darwin was arguing for descent with modification through natural selection, Mendel was in favor of the orthodox doctrine of special creation."

The laws discovered by Mendel put Darwinism in a very difficult position. For these reasons, scientists who supported Darwinism tried to develop a different model of evolution in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Thus was born "neo-Darwinism."

------------------------

Part two.. Next post...

 

Juicy,

Keep your articles. If anyone was interested, they google them without you.

I speak from personal knowledge and in my own words, whereas you are merely spamming the board. You don't even understand your own spam.

Just give it up, would you?

Accept defeat with a little class.

If the author of your articles wishes to debate, bring him here and let him fend for himself. Otherwise, nobody cares. You stand- for the 7th (or is it the 8th?) time, defeated.

at least re-invent yourself and try a new approach, for christ sake!

 

Now Geckopelli.. you should pay attention to this next bit.


When I say that Darwinism is NOT accepted anymore, please understand that Im not just 'Saying it' because Im 'Mad at Darwinism.'

No.
Darwinism is NOT accepted anymore. If you walked into an Evolutionists Convention nowadays and insisted that Natural Selection was the Mechanism -You would be soundly rejected and probably laughed off the stage!

Dont blame me - I think the new belief in Hopeful Monsters is even MORE ridiculous than Darwins misunderstanding.

.....................


A group of scientists who were determined to reconcile Darwinism with the science of genetics, in one way or another, came together at a meeting organized by the Geological Society of America in 1941. After long discussion, they agreed on ways to create a new interpretation of Darwinism and over the next few years, specialists produced a synthesis of their fields into a revised theory of evolution.

The scientists who participated in establishing the new theory included the geneticists G. Ledyard Stebbins and Theodosius Dobzhansky, the zoologists Ernst Mayr and Julian Huxley, the paleontologists George Gaylord Simpson and Glenn L. Jepsen, and the mathematical geneticists Sir Ronald A. Fisher and Sewall Wright.5

To counter the fact of "genetic stability" (genetic homeostasis), this group of scientists employed the concept of "mutation," which had been proposed by the Dutch botanist Hugo de Vries at the beginning of the 20th century. Mutations were defects that occurred, for unknown reasons, in the inheritance mechanism of living things. Organisms undergoing mutation developed some unusual structures, which deviated from the genetic information they inherited from their parents. The concept of "random mutation" was supposed to provide the answer to the question of the origin of the advantageous variations which caused living organisms to evolve according to Darwin's theory-a phenomenon that Darwin himself was unable to explain, but simply tried to side-step by referring to Lamarck. The Geological Society of America group named this new theory, which was formulated by adding the concept of mutation to Darwin's natural selection thesis, the "synthetic theory of evolution" or the "modern synthesis." In a short time, this theory came to be known as "neo-Darwinism" and its supporters as "neo-Darwinists."


The architects of Neo-Darwinism: Theodosius Dobzhansky,
Ernst Mayr, , and Julian Huxley. Yet there was a serious problem: It was true that mutations changed the genetic data of living organisms, yet this change always occurred to the detriment of the living thing concerned. All observed mutations ended up with disfigured, weak, or diseased individuals and, sometimes, led to the death of the organism. Hence, in an attempt to find examples of "useful mutations" which improve the genetic data in living organisms, neo-Darwinists conducted many experiments and observations. For decades, they conducted mutation experiments on fruit flies and various other species. However, in none of these experiments could a mutation which improved the genetic data in a living being be seen.

Today the issue of mutation is still a great impasse for Darwinism. Despite the fact that the theory of natural selection considers mutations to be the unique source of "useful changes," no mutations of any kind have been observed that are actually useful (that is, that improve the genetic information). In the following chapter, we will consider this issue in detail.

Another impasse for neo-Darwinists came from the fossil record. Even in Darwin's time, fossils were already posing an important obstacle to the theory. While Darwin himself accepted the lack of fossils of "intermediate species," he also predicted that further research would provide evidence of these lost transitional forms. However, despite all the paleontologists' efforts, the fossil record continued to remain a serious obstacle to the theory. One by one, concepts such as "vestigial organs," "embryological recapitulation" and "homology" lost all significance in the light of new scientific findings.

---------------------------------

So there is more details on the short-lived but highly popular world of Darwinism.

Darwin did have one really unique quote I just found again:


Creation Ex Nihilo, 5(4):18, April 1983 "ONE IS FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT MANY SCIENTISTS AND TECHNOLOGISTS PAY LIP-SERVICE TO DARWINIAN THEORY ONLY BECAUSE IT SUPPOSEDLY EXCLUDES A CREATOR"

Interesting was a quote from Aldous Huxley [Brave New World Author].. the Grandson of Darwins Peer Huxley.

‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’


In another quote - Huxley basically attributes the stunning and almost immediate popularity of Darwinism to the same reasons he gives for himself.
Unfortunately I cant find that quote again.

Anyyyyway.
That should give us a lot more insight into Darwinism and his times.

 

Ditto my last post.

Besides, I've lost interest.

You'd better quit spamming the boards before darrell notices you're back.

 

In this case, I am quoting articles but my posts offer a context, introduction and interjected with my opinion, analysis and even ask others to comment on the articles throughout.

In this case the snippets are directly related to the exact topic.

Having said that - a good example of 'Spamming' would be repeatedly denouncing members with no other purpose than to insult or antagonise.

 

Ditto, ditto.