Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
Actually your question revolves around an incorrect assumption. At each "leap forward" all that was needed was a different adaptation.
With the normal range of variation, supplemented by mutations, at each generation there are thousands to billions (depending on the species) of "experiments" at adaptation. Of those, the failures are removed. Each succeeding generation, then, is descended from the successful adaptations. This powerful feedback mechanism works quite well unless the failures become to great (with rapidly changing environmental conditions, for example), then you get extinction and an open niche for some other more successful species to expand into.
I was told the same thing, and then I wondered how Satan got the power to be the Creator and even make whole new galaxies and stars that we can see even though they’re WAY more than 6,000 light years away.
And if Satan has the power to create fossils that date with radiometric dating back millions of years, then nothing we see can be verified.
Satan could have written the Bible if that line of logic is pursued.
Those that died.
Evolution is faith, not science. Many scientists, by faith, believe that man evolved and was not created in current human form. This has never been proven, this has never been tested, yet somehow it’s science. Human evolution is not science, it’s an incorrect and false religion."
Sorry pal, but you have NO CLUE what you're talking about. You're just jabbering -- slapping words together that sound good TO YOU. They have no meaning outside your own mind.
The theory of evolution is as scientific as any other theory. It can be proved or disproved scientifically, but it cannot be overthrown by a RELIGIOUS assertion such as "creationism."
Are dog and wolves the same species? How about tigers and lions?
Australopithecus and neanderthal?
Are dog and wolves the same species? How about tigers and lions?
Australopithecus and neanderthal?
Oh for crying out loud!
Carbon 14 dating is good for about 60,000 years. Beyond that other methods of dating have to be used, including the radioactive decay rates of isotopes of uranium.
Look, it's 100% clear that you hate, despise, loathe and detest the very idea of science. You are therefore 100% DISQUALIFIED from defining what IS and IS NOT science.
Crawl back in your cave.
You despise science.
You have no idea what science is.
You are TOTALLY DISQUALIFIED from passing judgment on what is or is not science.
The theory of evolution is as scientific as any other theory, regardless of your pretenses.
What is accurate science?
Please cite me a single “scientific” experiment that has been used to prove (or disprove) the theory of human evolution.
Why is it that scientists have no problems with these dating methods, knowing all of the assumptions and qualifications that are a part of each particular method?
Why is it only young earth creationists who can't accept the dates and the methods that are used? The answer is clear: it is for reasons based on religious belief, not on the scientific merits or potential pitfalls in any specific dating method.
But if you have any legitimate questions on carbon 14 dating let me know. I use that method of dating a lot, and have both written and lectured on it. I would be glad to help you understand it if you have real questions.
Your use of the word single makes that impossible.
Now let's take the example of symbiosis you've provided, and see how it works when dealing with more than two animal and plant species. The unique relationship between ants, grass, grazing animals and the liverfluke is a perfect case in point.
Now just a dadgumed moment. I thought Creationism was a conspiracy invented in the '50s to circumvent various Supreme Court decisions prohibiting school prayer and the teaching of Christianity in the public schools.
Now you're telling me that Creationism has existed for as long a 6,000 years?
Which is it? Sixty or 6,000?
“What would you expect from HYPOCRITES ... They PREACH the GOSPEL according to DARWIN, and then they create Government WELFARE Programs designed to THWART DARWINISM at Every turn.”
You guys are Hitlerious!
There is so much to work with on this post...
Say what you will about evolution, but the Taliban wing of Free Republic certainly has evolved, although it is the level of hysteria that is increasing - not a positive evolutionary trait on it’s own. The only evolutionary advantage it offers is when it results in everyone who disagrees with the Taliban wing being removed from the gene pool. However, geographically, this sort of advantage is only conferred in habitats whose names end in “-stan”.
Men of science and faith can discuss this subject without such histrionics as comparative Hitlerianism, and equating theoretical scientific hypothesis, through some sort of perverted syllogy, to Eugenics using Gospel to grease the treads.
There is science and there is faith - don’t expect one to always reinforce the other - in fact, keep them separate for a happier life.
“Why is it that scientists have no problems with these dating methods, knowing all of the assumptions and qualifications that are a part of each particular method?”
They believe it because it was peer reviewed, simple as that.
The whole point to my posts is simply to show that human evolution is nothing more than faith, the exact same thing scientist accuse creationists of believing.
Can the bible be more accurate than some give it credit for? Is it entirely metaphorical or is our understanding limited because our science is incomplete?
__________________________
Genesis 2
But for Adam [g] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs [h] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [i] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman, [j] ‘
for she was taken out of man.”
_______________________________________________
Sperm Cells Created From Human Bone Marrow
For the experiment, Prof Nayernia and his team took bone marrow from male volunteers and isolated the mesenchymal stem cells. These cells have previously been found to grow into other body tissues such as muscle.
They cultured these cells in the laboratory and coaxed them into becoming male reproductive cells, which are scientifically known as ‘germ cells’. Genetic markers showed the presence of partly-developed sperm cells called spermatagonial stem cells, which are an early phase of the male germ cell development. In most men, spermatagonial cells eventually develop into mature, functional sperm but this progression was not achieved in this experiment.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070412211409.htm
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.