Refuting Darwinism, point by point

WorldNetDaily,com ^ | 1-11-03 | Interview of James Perloff

[DWar]

Non-Technical synopsis of the position against Darwinism.

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[jlogajan]

But actually, it's the teaching of Darwin's theory as a "fact" that starts many young people doubting the existence of God. Once we stop believing in God, we discard his moral laws and start making up our own rules, which is basically why our society is in so much trouble. ...

Anatomical similarities between men and animals are said to prove common ancestry. But intelligent design also results in innumerable similarities, as in the case of two makes of automobile.

Ha ha, he slipped up. ID'ers are supposed to pretend that ID doesn't presuppose a God, or some numbnuts thing like that.

But here the matter is out in the open -- they hate the theory of evolution because then God isn't so important.

That pretty much explains the rest of their "science" on the issue.

[AlaskaErik]

As the old saying goes, "You keep on believing, We'll keep on evolving".

[John H K]

Looks Cliff Notes for the profoundly retarded, consisting of all the same tired old creationist arguments.

World Net Daily continues to get more and more embarrassingly bad.

Anyway, as usual, if you need an antidote, as always, try:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

[LiteKeeper]

YEC read later

[garbanzo]

all the same tired old creationist arguments.

It is amazing how the arguments never change.

[DWar]

"Ha ha, he slipped up. ID'ers are supposed to pretend that ID doesn't presuppose a God, or some numbnuts thing like that. "


A rational discusion of Intelligent Design DOES DEFINITELY presuppose a preexisting intelligence. That which is designed cannot preexist the designer. Intelligent Design does not necessitate the Christian God for it to have validity or for that matter a god of a supernatural nature. But rather a very powerful, intelligent force which preexisted the material universe.

So taking the God hating emotion out of the discusion...there was no 'slip-up'.

[nwrep]

all the same tired old creationist arguments.

How about the same, tired, old evolutionist arguments that have been recycled for 150 years?

[ContentiousObjector]

Flat Earth Society Bump!

[ContentiousObjector]

No, if nothing else arguments for evolution EVOLVE,

there are new arguments for evolution every week!

arguments for evolution have gone from "look at the beak on that birdy" to "look the bones in those old rocks are alot like the bones in those new rocks... but differant" to "look at the DNA from a monkey and look at the DNA for a man"

Creationist arguments have gone from "Your going to hell" to "Your going to hell"

[fabian]

I was reading about the glue that mussels produce to fasten themselves to the rocks and how it can withstand pressure of 1000 lbs per square inch. It's stronger than any man made glue. If we spend time, money and energy to produce strong epoxys, it doesn't make sense to believe the mussels glue just appeared without a designer.

[DWar]

In physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, also known as the law of entropy, is clear that all complex systems are in a continual process of being reduced to less complexity. In nature, it is scientifically impossible for a less complex system, organic or inorganic, to move from the less to the more complex.

" mutations – long claimed by evolutionists to be the building blocks of evolutionary change – are now known to remove information from the genetic code. They never create higher, more complex information..."

[B.Bumbleberry]

One of the best books I've ever read on evolution is "Anti-Evolution: An Annotated Bibliography" by Tom McIver. It becomes apparent that these same anti-evolution arguments, and a lot of others besides, really are old, going back in some instances over a 100 years. I guess there's nothing wrong with making a little off some new books sold to people who never read the earlier ones.

[DWar]

In physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, also known as the law of entropy, is clear that all complex systems are in a continual process of being reduced to less complexity. In nature, it is scientifically impossible for a less complex system, organic or inorganic, to move from the less to the more complex.

" mutations – long claimed by evolutionists to be the building blocks of evolutionary change – are now known to remove information from the genetic code. They never create higher, more complex information..."

[fabian]

It's important for mind controlers to create a doubt about God in young people. That way there's a larger customer base for the liberal social programs they will need after falling away from their brightness and independence.

[rmmcdaniell]

In physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, also known as the law of entropy, is clear that all complex systems are in a continual process of being reduced to less complexity.

If genes were rocks then you would be correct. Like stones slowly weathered into sand, genes would be eventually degraded into a completely disordered informationless state. However genes are not rocks. Genes that are degraded through mutation are eliminated through death of the individual unlucky enough to posess them. Genes that retain there usefulness are preserved through reproduction. Then the select few that become even more usefull are preferentially multiplied.

In nature, it is scientifically impossible for a less complex system, organic or inorganic, to move from the less to the more complex.

If it is so impossible how is a single fertilized egg cell able to develop into a vastly more complex adult human? You need to get your head out of the bible and into science textbooks to prevent yourself from posting more stupid posts like this.

[Deathmonger]

Actually, in the balance life contributes to entropy, processing chemicals and excreting it into simpler molecules. Life maintains its local organization at the expense of the surrounding environment. Otherwise we would all be perpetual energy machines.

[DWar]

' It becomes apparent that these same anti-evolution arguments, and a lot of others besides, really are old, going back in some instances over a 100 years.'

Truth IS exceptionally old. It is a relatively modern and ignorant phenomenon to disparage wisdom from the past and only respect that which is 'new or modern'. The wisdom of this is questionable given that the acquisition of knowledge is a progressivly building process requiring a foundation and a progression from the elementary to the advanced. The existence of the advanced does not invalidate the wisdom of the elementary. Rather the reverse.