Refuting Darwinism, point by point

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

[rmmcdaniell]

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.

The age of a belief does not prove its validity. It works both ways, the ancient and traditional qualities no more proves a belief than an opposing argument’s modernity.

[Anti-Bubba182]

DONATE TODAY!!!. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[DWar]

"If it is so impossible how is a single fertilized egg cell able to develop into a vastly more complex adult human?"

The maturation of an individual biologic entity does not violate the the universal, scientifically accepted Second Law of Thermodynamics. However the SLoT would mitigate against any self generation of mutated biologic advancement within any organism or species or the development of one species to another.

"You need to get your head out of the bible and into science textbooks to prevent yourself from posting more stupid posts like this."

The last bastion of the ignorant is the ad hominem attack. How sad. I hope in the future it will be beneath you.

Tiomr Domini Principium Scientiae

[DWar]

"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."

We all understand the 'theory'. But it cannot be demonstrated in nature and so remains propaganda. The presumptions of the darwinist interpretation of the fossil record are laughable. READ the article above. There is no evidence of any transitional forms. None in the living world. None in the fossil record. None in the cellular world. Why would eons of biologic evolutionary processes have simpliy ceased leaving no trace of evolutionary forms?

[DWar]

"The age of a belief does not prove its validity. It works both ways, the ancient and traditional qualities no more proves a belief than an opposing argument’s modernity."


I agree. However it wasn't I who asserted the veracity of anything based upon its age. Rather it was B.Bumbleberry who denegrated a certain thought process simply because it was old. My response was to that. I attempted to make the point that if it is true, it should not be discounted simply because it is old.

[Dark Knight]

The second law is always conserved. Unless someone wants to go to Newtonian Jail. The sun supplies all the energy necessary for systems on the Earth to organize. That does not mean the Theory of Evolution is more than a theory. It is just a theory, and it has yet to show replicability, and mechanism. Not very good signs as the rest of the hard sciences are progressing.

DK
PS Expect another 1500 post thread leading to bashing, and name calling and other time honored debating techniques.

[Voice in your head]

I've been a lurker for a while, but this finally motivated me to post. I don't mind when someone who knows nothing of a topic chooses to engage in a discussion about that given topic - that is one way that we learn. However, when frauds pretend to know what they're talking about, it grows very tiresome.

“First, it's taught as ‘scientific fact.’”

Oh really? I just graduated with a degree in biology and this was never taught as “scientific fact”. It was taught as theory – an evolving theory (no pun intended). It was also taught as theory when I was in high school, where we learned about the competing views of the origins of life, which included evolution, creationism, and views held by others, such as Lamarck.

“mutations… never create higher, more complex information – even in the rare cases of beneficial mutations, such as bacterial resistance to antibiotics.”

Then how does he define “higher”?

“cells are now known to be far too complex to have originated by some chance concurrence of chemicals, as Darwin hypothesized and is still being claimed.”

Who makes that claim?

“But we don't see transitionals between them. If these creatures ever existed, why did none survive? It is too easy to explain it away by saying they all became extinct.”

So is “too easy to explain” another way of saying, “makes too much sense to argue against?”

“Why aren't these creatures evolving into each other today? Why aren't invertebrates evolving into fish today? Why aren't fish growing little legs and so forth?”

Evolution is believed to take several generations, depending on how drastic the change. My question is, “how would we notice such a drastic change, of one species ‘evolving into’ another?” Minor changes take place over a long time, as is currently theorized. Major changes take place over a longer period of time.

“And while there are billions of fossils of both invertebrates and fish, fossils linking them are missing.”

What percentage of organisms from a particular species that were alive are actually found in the fossil record? Would it be reasonable to expect that the so-called “transitional” creatures did not have such a large population, and thus they are less likely to be found, if ever?

“Dr. Michael Denton, the Australian molecular biologist, examined these creatures on a molecular level and found no evidence whatsoever for the fish-amphibian-reptile-mammal sequence.”

Try phylogenic trees.

For this guy to pretend to intelligently discuss this issue reminds me of Hollywood stars pretending to intelligently discuss politics, the New England Journal of Medicine pretending to intelligently discuss gun control, and non-Muslims pretending to intelligently discuss Islam. There is nothing wrong with attempting to discuss an issue that is well outside one’s area of expertise. However, to pretend to have an understanding of an issue that one is woefully ignorant of necessarily lowers the level of intelligent discourse.

[f.Christian]

Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc/liberal/govt-religion/rhetoric)...

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin/ACLU America---the post-modern left wing lunatic outer fringe age of evolution!

[Voice in your head]

"Please consider that there are thousands of highly intelligent and degree holding experts on both sides of the intelligent design verses evolution question."

I'm sure that there are. In the interview that began this thread, James Perloff demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic.

[PatrickHenry]

Recycled reading for retards. Ping.

[This ping list for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be included, or dropped, let me know via freepmail.]

[Physicist]

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

Actually, they've gone from "You're going to Hell" to "Your going to hell". ;^)

[I got the rope]

But of course...

[gore3000]

if you need an antidote, as always, try:
http://www.talkorigins.org/

Not much scientific fact over there, just a lot of blowhard half truths. There is lots of Evidence Disproving Evolution which cannot be talked away.

[gore3000]

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.

That the arguments are old does not mean they are false. In fact the argument against evolution goes back to Aristotle:

It was on the whole the former tendency (the tendency to perceive nature in discontinuous terms) that prevailed in early modern biology. In spite of the violent reaction of the astronomy, physics, and metaphysics of the Renaissance against the Aristotelian influence, in biology the doctrine of natural species continued to be potent - largely, no doubt, because it seemed to be supported by observation.
From: Lovejoy "The Great Chain of Being", pages 227-228 as quoted in Denton, "Evolution: A theory in Crises", page 354.

[gore3000]

Why would eons of biologic evolutionary processes have simpliy ceased leaving no trace of evolutionary forms?

Yes indeed. Are we to believe the evolutionist's childish excuse that 'the dog ate the homework'?

[PatrickHenry]

A very few links from the famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).

01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.

The foregoing is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated Creationism vs. Evolution threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 20].

[gore3000]

[This ping list for the evolution -- not creationism -

Or 'we evolutionists do not want to hear what the other side has to say because we are close-minded bigots who will not change our minds in any way'.

[VadeRetro]

He teaches Human Anatomy and Pathology here at the ICR graduate school.

"... Here at ICR?" The 6000-years-young-Earth propaganda mill? Henry Morris? Duane Gish? You're making an argument from authority based on the ICR resumé page?

This one of those "you really have to be a believer already" type of arguments.