Darwin a bold Prophet?

_{Mark

May 31, 2007

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

“I believe that if fossil birds are found very low down in the series, they will be seen to have a double or bifurcated wing. Here is a bold prophecy!”

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1452.2&viewtype=text&pageseq=226

Does any one know if his prophecy came true?

Comments

Darwin was talking about the Ã¢â‚¬Å“bast_rd wingÃ¢â‚¬Â (a group of feathers attached to the first digit. He considered it to be a vestage of a past now redundant design eliminated by NS. Got it. So it isnt a Sopwith Camel he was predicting but an X-wing Rebel Fighter.joseg_{June 3, 2007
June
06
Jun
3
03
2007
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

Jaredl, It has been pointed out to me that there are many creation stories from around the world, yet the majority of these other creation stories from around the world sound very similar to fairy tales and Lack the stunning scientific validation we have for the Genesis account of "Let there be light".bornagain77_{June 3, 2007
June
06
Jun
3
03
2007
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

Your missing the whole point Jared L, the point is that Theism, and only Theism, predicted creation of the universe. No eastern religion predicted this, nor did the materialistic philosophy that is currently entrenched over science predict this. Only Theism predicted such a counterintuitive prediction for science. For you to try to obfuscate this fact with rhetoric does you absolutely no good whatsoever. The main and only point that matters is that Theism and only Theism, predicted creation of the universe and materialism, and any other philosophy you want to choose from, did not. You claimed this was problematic. That is absurd for you to say that. The only place there is a problem is with your preconcieved philosophical biases in your head. I believe you find the notion of God distasteful. That really is too bad for you, for the truth of the way things actually are could care less about your personal preferences for the way you think they should be. I just hope this prejudice changes for you and that you will practice good science and follow the evidence wherever it leads. Even if it is "distasteful" for you. You may really be quite surprised at what you find once you do this!bornagain77_{June 2, 2007
June
06
Jun
2
02
2007
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

Let us take the first statment - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." How do you get from this simple statement to any definite cosmology? Wikipedia has an article on Classical theism.jaredl_{June 2, 2007
June
06
Jun
2
02
2007
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

Borne: " Ã¢â‚¬Å“loosingÃ¢â‚¬Â means unfastening. I believe the word you seek is losing which is the opposite of winning." Thanks. I over-cooked that ;)JGuy_{June 1, 2007
June
06
Jun
1
01
2007
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT}

For something that the Darwinists regard as a stroke of genius, Darwinism is surprisingly mickey mouse. All that Darwinism tells us is that there is natural selection, i.e., fitter organisms are more likely to survive than less-fit organisms (duh), and that random mutations happen (duh again). Biologists have an inferiority complex because of the attitude expressed by Lord Rutherford: "All science is either physics or stamp collecting." Because of this inferiority complex, biologists have been waging a prestige war by claiming that biology has something that other branches of science don't have, a grand overarching unifying "theory of everything," Darwinism.Larry Fafarman_{June 1, 2007
June
06
Jun
1
01
2007
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

BFast & JGuy : "loosing" means unfastening. I believe the word you seek is losing which is the opposite of winning. -------------- Jaredl: "Each of these claims seems exceedingly problematic, at best." Not at all. On the contrary even. Where do you see exceedingly problematic? What problem specifically? "You seem to be laboring under at least three misconceptions. 1. Theism is necessarily classical theism. 2. Theism necessarily incorporates belief in the Bible. 3. The Bible unambiguously supports Big Bang cosmology. " Theism: "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world." "Classical theism"? Define please. No, bare theism doesn't necessarily mean belief in the bible. "The Bible unambiguously supports Big Bang cosmology." That is true. "In the beginning God created." The bible universally speaks of creation as an instantaneous event. ------------------ bornagain77: The old rabbis actually calculated the age of the universe as around 15 billion years old. You also have to remember that a lot of people are ignorant of the bible, only have misconceptions and heresay notions about it and thus don't know what you're talking about if you don't clarify things more.Borne_{June 1, 2007
June
06
Jun
1
01
2007
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

The mis-understanding may be in that Job 38:4-11 is refering to the time 400,000 years to 200 milliom years after the Big Bang. Though in itself it is not part of the Big Bang, It is still a scarily precise allusion to the time God first forged the elements in the first mega-stars that were in the universe. It is an indication that craftsmanship was wrought on the primordial universe that was necessary for the foundation of a earth with the ability to support life. I don't know if the anthropic hypothesis in its current state reflects this but I am fairly confident in further refinement of the anthropic hypothesis this will turn out to be a necessary and obvious condition for life on earth.bornagain77_{June 1, 2007
June
06
Jun
1
01
2007
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

bornagain77. I am afraid that how "Job 38:4-11 has any connection whatsoever to details of Big Bang Cosmology" still escapes me. Please briefly elaborate.idnet.com.au_{June 1, 2007
June
06
Jun
1
01
2007
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

Jaredl, For you to deny Job 38:4-11, which was written 1000's of years ago, has any connection whatsoever to details of Big Bang Cosmology, that were revealed just last year, is just plain hard headedness on your part. If you can't see the stunning similarity between recent scientific observations and these scriptures there is no point in me debating any of the other points with you for you are beyond my feeble powers of persuasion. Excuse me if I sound rude but, I truly don't understand how anyone like you can be so blind in their mind. Though the scripture is indeed ancient, it truly reads like a daily newspaper account of very recent observations. I've debated several people like you and it truly is like talking to a brick wall for me. I'm sorry if this offends you but I can think of no other way to put the way I feel.bornagain77_{June 1, 2007
June
06
Jun
1
01
2007
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

#16 You seem to be laboring under at least three misconceptions. 1. Theism is necessarily classical theism. 2. Theism necessarily incorporates belief in the Bible. 3. The Bible unambiguously supports Big Bang cosmology.jaredl_{June 1, 2007
June
06
Jun
1
01
2007
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Wow Jaredl, Your refutation is so weak the wind itself may blow it away. Since it would take up to much space to do a detailed defence of each, I will just concetrate on defending point #1. Genesis 1:1-3 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. The Big Bang refers to the time 13.7 billion years ago, when the entire universe burst into existence from a space smaller than the width of an atom. All the Ã¢â‚¬Å“materialÃ¢â‚¬Â that is in this vast universe came from this event. Scientists say that even time and space, as we know them, were created in this event. For the first 400,000 years of our universeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s existence, the universe was a seething maelstrom of matter so hot, that sub-atomic particles trying to form into atoms would have been blasted apart instantly, and so dense, that light couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have traveled more than a short distance before being absorbed. If you could somehow live long enough to look around in such conditions, you would see nothing but brilliant white light in all directions. When the cosmos was about 400,000 years old, it had cooled to about the temperature of the surface of the sun. The last light from the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Big BangÃ¢â‚¬Â shone forth at that time. It is still detectable today as Cosmic Background Radiation. This Ã¢â‚¬Å“babyÃ¢â‚¬Â universe entered into a period of darkness. When the dark ages began, the cosmos was a formless sea of particles; by the time it ended, a couple of hundred million years later, the universe lit up again; by the light of nascent galaxies and stars that had been formed during this time. It was during the dark ages that the chemical elements we know so well, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and most of the rest were first forged, by nuclear fusion inside the stars, out of primordial hydrogen and helium. It should be noted that every class of elements that exists on the periodic table of elements is necessary for complex carbon-based life to exist. In other words, every class of elements known to man is necessary for us to exist. It was also during this time that the great structures of the modern universe were forged, superclusters of thousands of galaxies stretching across millions of light years had their foundations laid in the dark age of the universe. During this time the infamous invisible dark matter (God) was exerting more gravity in some areas than in other areas; drawing in hydrogen and helium gas, causing the formation of the first mega-stars. These mega-stars were massive, weighing in at 20 to more than 100 times the mass of the sun. The crushing pressure at their cores made them burn through their fuel, in only a million years. It was here, in these short lived mega-stars, under these crushing pressures that the chemical elements that are necessary for life were first forged, out of primordial hydrogen and helium. The reason astronomers can not see the light from these first mega-stars, during this early period of the universes history, is because they were shrouded by thick clouds of hydrogen and helium, which prevented them from spreading their light thru the cosmos. After about 200 million years, the end of the dark ages came to the cosmos; when the universe was able to allow the formation of normal stars and dwarf galaxies. The radiation and light of the normal stars and dwarf galaxies were finally able to burn through the shrouds of hydrogen and helium gas, bringing the dark ages to a close. Job 38:4-11 Ã¢â‚¬Å“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut in the sea with doors, when it burst forth and issued from the womb; When I made the clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band; When I fixed my limit for it, and set bars and doors; When I said, Ã¢â‚¬ËœThis far you may come but no farther, and here your proud waves must stop!Ã¢â‚¬â„¢bornagain77_{June 1, 2007
June
06
Jun
1
01
2007
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

#4 - 1. Theism implies the big bang? 2. Theism implies quantum mechanics? 3. Theism implies relativity? 4. Theism implies the anthropic principle? 5. Theism implies the existence of DNA? 6. Theism implies mutations are nearly always deletorious? 7. Theism implies life is complex? 8. Theism implies life arose suddenly? 9. Theism implies the Cambrian Explosion? Each of these claims seems exceedingly problematic, at best.jaredl_{June 1, 2007
June
06
Jun
1
01
2007
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

When Jonathan Wells was interviewed by Lee Strobel in The Case for the Creator, Wells mentioned in passing that many of the fossil "finds" from China are bogus. He stated that there is monetary incentive to concoct fake fossils, so there is sort of an "industry" set up over there that gives western evolutionary scientists exactly what they want to find. Anyone know about the veracity of this assertion? I bring this up here because the bi-plane style dinosaur/bird linked to in the New Scientist and National Geographic articles above appears to have been "found" in China. Who found the fossils, and under what circumstances? (ok, I admit, I haven't read the articles yet--maybe when I read them this will be answered).jb_{June 1, 2007
June
06
Jun
1
01
2007
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

bFast:
"Rather, the majority of Biblical theists who begin with a Ã¢â‚¬Å“the Bible is the Word of God inerantÃ¢â‚¬Â view have presented a young earth prediction of what science would find. So far, the young earth position is loosing out very badly."
Explain how so. I'm leary of this claim, it's reminescent of the air and attitude that the "evidence" spoke/argued, as per evolutionists, about the "inverted" retina of humans as being a bad design... and therefore somehow not designed. Further undertanding of the nature of MÃƒÂ¼ller cells on the front of the retina has stood that arguement on it's head - in a most emabarrasing way for those bad design proponents that pushed the "inverted" retina argument (e.g. Dawkins). See: http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html#Optical So, my question is this.. What evidence has spoken and convinced you that the young earth creationists are loosing in a bad way.JGuy_{June 1, 2007
June
06
Jun
1
01
2007
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

Bfast, The main job of a hypothesis in science is to give, somewhat, accurate predictions to scientists. In this main job for a hypothesis materailism has clearly failed miserably. Whereas Theism has been surprisingly accurate. You point to "Young Earth Creationism" in order to reject the entire Theistic Philosophy, when the Theistic philosophy can easily adjust to the concept of 6 long periods of creation (a day is as a thousand years, a thousand years as a day) by taking into account the eternal nature of God. Whereas the Materialistic philosophy was dealt a shattering blow with the Big Bang in which it has had to make totally fantastic claims in order to adjust to the evidence and remain somewhat valid as a hypothesis. Yet you are not impressed that it should be rejected as an overriding hypothesis as you think Theism should be at this point. This is clearly unreasonable speculation on your part. I want to point out again that Materialism postulates that everything that exists came from blind chance acting on a material basis which has always existed. Whereas the Theistic philosophy ,(mind before material), postulates that everything that exists comes from the God who has always existed in a timeless eternity. I know of no other philosophies that can be used as overriding hypothesis's in science, save for perversions of those two main philosophies. For you to say we cannot make clear predictions from the Theistic position is just plain wrong on your part. It is similar to saying that materialism can make no predictions. Which is clearly not the case.bornagain77_{June 1, 2007
June
06
Jun
1
01
2007
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

That is correct, Darwin's prophecy was not related to using the back legs as a second pair of wings but having the front wings bifrucated by a more pornounced first digit. So the four winged bird doesn't count.Jehu_{June 1, 2007
June
06
Jun
1
01
2007
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT}

Darwin was talking about the "bast_rd wing" (a group of feathers attached to the first digit. He considered it to be a vestage of a past now redundant design eliminated by NS.idnet.com.au_{May 31, 2007
May
05
May
31
31
2007
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

The fossil of the M. gui is dated between 128 to 124 million years old. If an older fossil is found, would this have fulfilled Darwin's bold prophecy? The article says: "Although the M. gui fossils are about 25 million years younger than Archaeopteryx, the four-winged dinosaur is a more primitive form derived from a very early evolutionary branch of dromaeosaurs." So finding fossils older than archaeopteryx isnt such a stretch.joseg_{May 31, 2007
May
05
May
31
31
2007
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

Darwin predicted "if fossil birds are found very low down in the series" The bird referred to in National Geographic is "dated at between 128 to 124 million years old" Archaeopteryx, a true bird, lived much earlier in the late Jurassic Period around 155-150 million years ago. Thus the prediction that a "missing link" would have certain features was not fulfilled. The agas are all wrong. Unlike Intelligent Design, Darwinian evolution must be linear and sequential.idnet.com.au_{May 31, 2007
May
05
May
31
31
2007
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT}

Does this count? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0121_030122_dromaeosaur.htmljoseg_{May 31, 2007
May
05
May
31
31
2007
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT}

Fross, I recall reading similar. I think Darwin gets this one. BornAgain77, you align a lot of "current scientific understanding" with theological concepts, however these theological concepts hardly present a clear prediction of the scientific understanding. Rather, the majority of Biblical theists who begin with a "the Bible is the Word of God inerant" view have presented a young earth prediction of what science would find. So far, the young earth position is loosing out very badly.bFast_{May 31, 2007
May
05
May
31
31
2007
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

As well, I would like to point out that the most likely prediction of the Theistic Philosophy would predict limits to variation of sub-species from "parent kinds" with the further away a sub-species is removed from its parent "kind" the less variability it will be found to have. The prediction could be pushed even more to say that the further away the sub-species is "adapted" the less fit for survival it will become (the more information it will lose). Materialism predicts no limits to variability nor does it predict this loss in fitness of survival, not does it predict loss of genetic information. Yet the evidence we have so far validates these predictions of Theism.bornagain77_{May 31, 2007
May
05
May
31
31
2007
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

In predictions, I believe Darwin's one and only claim to fame was when he predicted the existance of giant moths to pollinate some flowers he observed that had long necks. Excuse me for being underwhelmed by his prediction. I've shown these following predictions between Materialism and Theism before so please forgive me for showing these predictions again. But I do believe it fitting for this subject. 1. Materialism did not predict the big bang, Yet Theism always said the universe was created. 2. Materialism did not predict a sub-atomic (quantum) world that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space, Yet Theism always said the universe is the craftsmanship of God who is not limited by time or space. 3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein's theory of relativity, Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity. 4. Materialism did not predict the stunning precision for the underlying universal constants for the universe, found in the Anthropic Principle, Yet Theism always said God laid the foundation of the universe, so the stunning clockwork precision found for the various universal constants is not at all unexpected for Theism. 5. Materialism did not predict the fact that the DNA code is, according to Bill Gates, far, far more advanced than any computer code ever written by man, Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity in the DNA code. 6. Materialism presumed a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA, which is not the case at all when carefully scrutinized. Yet Theism would have naturally presumed such a high if not, what very well may be, complete negative mutation rate to an organismÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s DNA. 7. Materialism presumed a very simple first life form. Yet the simplest life ever found on Earth is, according to Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. Theism would have naturally expected this. 8. Materialism predicted that it took a very long time for life to develop on earth, Yet we find evidence for photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth (Sarah Simpson, Scientific American, 2003). Theism would have expected this sudden appearance of life on earth. 9. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record, The Cambrian Explosion cast doubt on this prediction. Theism would have expected such sudden appearance of the many different fossils in the Cambrian explosion.bornagain77_{May 31, 2007
May
05
May
31
31
2007
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

Alas, a Google search for fossil bird, double or bifurcated wing yeilds Darwin's letter but no fossils.idnet.com.au_{May 31, 2007
May
05
May
31
31
2007
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11007&feedId=online-news_rss20 I remember reading about this a few months ago.Fross_{May 31, 2007
May
05
May
31
31
2007
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

What, you mean like a SPAD 13? Or a Sopwith Camel? He, he. Sorry, couldn't resist and didn't have time to read the link. Please ignore me. What about a Fokker Tri-Plane?TRoutMac_{May 31, 2007
May
05
May
31
31
2007
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply