Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Refuting Darwinism, point by point
WorldNetDaily,com ^ | 1-11-03 | Interview of James Perloff

Posted on 01/11/2003 9:53:34 PM PST by DWar

EVOLUTION WATCH Refuting Darwinism, point by point Author's new book presents case against theory in just 83 pages

Posted: January 11, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: In 1999, author James Perloff wrote the popular "Tornado in a Junkyard," which summarizes much of the evidence against evolution and is considered one of the most understandable (while still scientifically accurate) books on the subject. Recently, WND talked with Perloff about his new book, "The Case Against Darwin."

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

QUESTION: Your new book is just 83 pages – and the type is large. What gives?

ANSWER: This past March I got a call from Ohio. There has been a battle there to allow critical examination of evolutionary theory in public schools, and a gentleman wanted 40 copies of Tornado to give to state legislators and school board members. I was delighted to send him the books, but I also knew that a state legislator isn't likely to pick up anything that's 321 pages long.

Q: And not just state legislators.

A: Right. We live in an age when parents often don't have time to read anything long, and their kids, who are usually more into video, may not have the inclination.

Q: So what's the focus of this book?

A: I've divided it into three chapters. The first is called "Is Darwin's Theory Relevant to Our Lives?" In other words, is the subject of this book worth my time or not? A lot of people think this is simply a science issue. And to some of them, science is booooring. 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. In short, Darwinism is very relevant – it's much more than a science matter.

Q: You, yourself, were an atheist for many years, were you not, as a result of evolutionary teaching?

A: That's right. I thought evolution had discredited the Bible. In my books, I give examples of notables who became atheists from being taught evolution, such as Stalin and Carnegie. In fact, the atheist Boy Scout who's been in the news reportedly attributes his atheism to being taught evolution.

Q: Why do you think evolution has such a persuasively negative effect on faith?

A: First, it's taught as "scientific fact." When kids hear "scientific fact," they think "truth." Who wants to go against truth? Second, it's the only viewpoint that's taught. After the Supreme Court kicked God out of schools in the '60s, kids heard the evolutionist viewpoint exclusively. It's like going to a courtroom – if you only heard the prosecutor's summation, you would probably think the defendant guilty. But if you only heard the defendant's attorney, you'd think "innocent." The truth is, we need to hear both sides, and kids haven't been getting it on the subject of origins.

Q: OK, then what?

A: The second chapter is "Evidence Against the Theory of Evolution." Let's face it, no matter what Darwinism's social ramifications, that alone would not be a sufficient basis to criticize it, if it were scientifically proven true.

Q: In a nutshell – if that's possible – what is the scientific evidence against Darwinism?

A: In the book, I focus on six areas of evidence. First, 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 – even in the rare cases of beneficial mutations, such as bacterial resistance to antibiotics. That has been laid out by Dr. Lee Spetner in his book "Not By Chance."

Q: What else?

A: Second, 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. We detail that in the book. Third, the human body has systems, such as blood clotting and the immune system, that are, in the words of biochemist Michael Behe, "irreducibly complex," meaning they cannot have evolved step-by-step. Behe articulated that in his book "Darwin's Black Box." And then there is the whole issue of transitional forms.

Q: What is a transitional form?

A: Darwin's theory envisioned that single-celled ancestors evolved into invertebrates (creatures without a backbone), who evolved into fish, who evolved into amphibians, who evolved into reptiles, who evolved into mammals. Now, a transitional form would be a creature intermediate between these. There would have to be a great many for Darwin's theory to be true.

Q: Are there?

A: There are three places to look for transitional forms. First, there's the living world around us. We see that it is distinctly divided – you have invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals. 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. And of course, there is the question: 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?

Q: Where else would you look for a transitional form?

A: In the fossil record. And here we have a problem of almost comparable magnitude. We find no fossils showing how the invertebrates evolved, or demonstrating that they came from a common ancestor. That's why you hear of the "Cambrian explosion." And while there are billions of fossils of both invertebrates and fish, fossils linking them are missing. Of course, there are some transitional fossils cited by evolutionists. However, two points about that. First, there should be a lot more if Darwin's theory is correct. Second, 99 percent of the biology of an organism is in its soft anatomy, which you cannot access in a fossil – this makes it easy to invest a fossil with a highly subjective opinion. The Piltdown Man and the recent Archaeoraptor are examples of how easy it is to be misled by preconceptions in this arena.

Q: What is the other place where you can look for transitional forms?

A: Microscopically, in the cell itself. 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. He summarized his findings in his book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis."

The last chapter is "Re-evaluating Some Evidences Used to Support the Theory" of evolution. That would include evidences that have been discredited, and also some evidences presented as proof that in fact rest on assumptions.

Q: What evidences have been discredited?

A: Ernst Haeckel's comparative embryo drawings. The human body being laden with "vestigial structures" from our animal past. Human blood and sea water having the same percentage of salt. Babies being born with "monkey tails." These are not foundational evidences, but they still hold sway in the public mind.

Q: You mentioned assumptions as proofs.

A: Yes. 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. Also, what has been called "microevolution" – minor adaptive changes within a type of animal – is extrapolated as evidence for "macroevolution" – the changing of one kind of animal into another. However, a species is normally endowed with a rich gene pool that permits a certain amount of variation and adaptation. Certainly, those things happen. But the change is ordinarily limited to the confines of the gene pool. It doesn't mean a fish could adapt its way into being a human.

Q: You covered a lot of this ground in "Tornado in a Junkyard." Can readers expect something new from "The Case Against Darwin"?

A: There is a bit of new material, but no, if you've read "Tornado," or for that matter, if you read the July 2001 Whistleblower, where we looked at evolution, you already know most of the points. What's new is the size. This is a book to give to a busy friend, a book for a high-school student to share with his science teacher.

"The Case Against Darwin" by James Perloff is available from ShopNetDaily.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: crevolist; jamesperloff
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,101-1,143 next last
Non-Technical synopsis of the position against Darwinism.
1 posted on 01/11/2003 9:53:34 PM PST by DWar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *crevo_list
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
2 posted on 01/11/2003 9:58:29 PM PST by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DWar
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.

3 posted on 01/11/2003 10:05:10 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DWar
As the old saying goes, "You keep on believing, We'll keep on evolving".
4 posted on 01/11/2003 10:08:18 PM PST by AlaskaErik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DWar
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/
5 posted on 01/11/2003 10:08:44 PM PST by John H K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DWar
YEC read later
6 posted on 01/11/2003 10:11:08 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John H K
all the same tired old creationist arguments.

It is amazing how the arguments never change.

7 posted on 01/11/2003 10:13:29 PM PST by garbanzo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: jlogajan
"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'.
9 posted on 01/11/2003 10:21:42 PM PST by DWar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: garbanzo
all the same tired old creationist arguments.

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

10 posted on 01/11/2003 10:23:48 PM PST by nwrep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Flat Earth Society Bump!
11 posted on 01/11/2003 10:24:58 PM PST by ContentiousObjector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
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"

12 posted on 01/11/2003 10:32:48 PM PST by ContentiousObjector (Do The Evolution Baby!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
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.
13 posted on 01/11/2003 10:39:00 PM PST by fabian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fabian
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..."
14 posted on 01/11/2003 10:54:03 PM PST by DWar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DWar
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.
15 posted on 01/11/2003 10:59:15 PM PST by B.Bumbleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan; AlaskaErik; John H K; garbanzo; ContentiousObjector
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..."


16 posted on 01/11/2003 11:00:01 PM PST by DWar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DWar
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.
17 posted on 01/11/2003 11:10:15 PM PST by fabian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

18 posted on 01/11/2003 11:11:44 PM PST by rmmcdaniell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DWar
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.
19 posted on 01/11/2003 11:16:07 PM PST by Deathmonger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: B.Bumbleberry
' 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.
20 posted on 01/11/2003 11:17:06 PM PST by DWar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DWar
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.

21 posted on 01/11/2003 11:43:03 PM PST by rmmcdaniell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

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


22 posted on 01/11/2003 11:54:36 PM PST by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rmmcdaniell
"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


23 posted on 01/12/2003 12:22:16 AM PST by DWar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: rmmcdaniell
"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?

24 posted on 01/12/2003 12:36:24 AM PST by DWar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: rmmcdaniell
"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.
25 posted on 01/12/2003 12:59:12 AM PST by DWar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rmmcdaniell
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.

26 posted on 01/12/2003 1:32:36 AM PST by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DWar
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.
27 posted on 01/12/2003 2:04:58 AM PST by Voice in your head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
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!

28 posted on 01/12/2003 2:19:46 AM PST by f.Christian (Orcs of the world: Take note and beware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: DWar
"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.
30 posted on 01/12/2003 3:48:55 AM PST by Voice in your head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; *crevo_list; RadioAstronomer; Scully; Piltdown_Woman; ...
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.]

31 posted on 01/12/2003 3:57:20 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: ContentiousObjector
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". ;^)

33 posted on 01/12/2003 5:19:27 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DWar
But of course...
34 posted on 01/12/2003 5:36:45 AM PST by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John H K
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.

35 posted on 01/12/2003 6:00:30 AM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: B.Bumbleberry
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.

36 posted on 01/12/2003 6:23:38 AM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DWar
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'?

37 posted on 01/12/2003 6:27:55 AM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: All
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].

38 posted on 01/12/2003 6:28:29 AM PST by PatrickHenry (PH is really a great guy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
[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'.

39 posted on 01/12/2003 6:32:39 AM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DWar
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.

40 posted on 01/12/2003 6:38:27 AM PST by VadeRetro (I mean, you couldn't get Ken Ham or Carl Baugh?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DWar
Welcome to the fray. Evolution is junk science but its acolytes avoid discussing this embarrassing truth by attacking Creationism and throwing slurs such as "recycled reading for retards".

They lose the debate on one thread, then migrate to another, calling their kin.

In a few words, the fossil record is full of gaps, more today than ever before, not transitional forms; species remain stable over millions of years, i.e. they exhibit stasis, not change; no credible mechanism of change, none, has been found. As to this latter, the Evolutionists have even tried "chance", which is flat ludicrous. Science is supposed to explain. Chance explains nothing. And on and on ... The Evolutionists have now retreated to the position of ponderously repeating that their "science" is about change over time. Well, guess what? Everything exhibits change over time. Some science.

41 posted on 01/12/2003 7:17:22 AM PST by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DWar
Bump for later
42 posted on 01/12/2003 7:22:04 AM PST by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ContentiousObjector
No, if nothing else arguments for evolution EVOLVE,

there are new arguments for evolution every week!

Of course.
With evolution new arguments NEED to be concocted weekly just to replace the old arguments for evolution which are proven fraudulent.

43 posted on 01/12/2003 8:11:13 AM PST by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DWar
Repeating falsehoods over and over doesn't make them true. It really would be nice if some of the creationists would pick up a text on thermodynamics occasionally or even one on biology rather than relying on what they heard from some guy on the state of the science in these fields.
44 posted on 01/12/2003 8:42:44 AM PST by garbanzo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DWar
A rational discusion of Intelligent Design DOES DEFINITELY presuppose a preexisting intelligence.

Duh! That's why it is such a hoot when I expose these ID'ers as theist and they yell at me for trying to drag "God" into their faux play at "science."

ID is religion, not science.

45 posted on 01/12/2003 9:51:47 AM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 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.

Sigh. I wish you ID guys would actually think before you post. Stop making fools of yourselves!!!!

Consider the life cycle of the snowflake. Sometimes water vapor, sometimes a raindrop, sometimes a pool of water, sometimes a complex organized structure. The molecules go from disorganized to organized and back again, over and over.

The snowflake lifecycle would seem to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics -- at least according to the ID'ers understanding (and I use that word generously.)

In fact processes on the earth are driven by solar energy and therefore it is NOT a closed system and therefore the 2nd law doesn't apply locally.

Please please please ID'ers -- read a little science, it will do you wonders.

46 posted on 01/12/2003 9:56:48 AM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Right Dude, you just keep telling yourself that
47 posted on 01/12/2003 10:01:21 AM PST by ContentiousObjector (Do The Evolution Baby!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DWar
Because you apparently havn't been keeping up on current events...

Answers in Genesis presents:
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use

48 posted on 01/12/2003 10:04:53 AM PST by Condorman (Blind faith is just ignorance in drag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Please please please atheists - - - grow a little brain // soul . . . it will do you wonders // science ! ! !
49 posted on 01/12/2003 10:23:53 AM PST by f.Christian (Orcs of the world: Take note and beware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Recycled reading for retards. Ping.

Make an idiot-proof argument and *Univ will make a better idiot.

50 posted on 01/12/2003 10:30:29 AM PST by balrog666 (Ignorance doesn't have to be eternal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,101-1,143 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson