Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 11/23/2004 9:53:55 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last
To: nickcarraway

Darwin doubted Darwin


2 posted on 11/23/2004 9:55:19 PM PST by stylin19a (Marines - filling up Iraq's Tomb of the Unknown Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

"Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution"

Irreducible Complexity, the enigma that only creation explains.


3 posted on 11/23/2004 9:59:51 PM PST by Puckster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway
For far too long, the apologists for Darwin have relied on a strategy of portraying challengers as simple-minded religious zealots

That is my biggest complaint. In any discussion on evolutionary theory, I am painted as a "Creationist", when in reality I tend to believe evolutionary theory as well as God's hand.

The absolute, scientific proof is simply not there for evolutionists, no matter what they say.

4 posted on 11/23/2004 10:01:37 PM PST by Carling (What happened to Sandy Burglar's Docs?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PatrickHenry

Here we go...


5 posted on 11/23/2004 10:04:15 PM PST by PianoMan (and now back to practicing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway

Existence and that which makes it possible is far to perfect, complex, and the same, to have randomly evolved. The theory of evolution will ultimetely take its proper place alongside the theory of the flat earth.


17 posted on 11/23/2004 10:36:54 PM PST by A6M3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Out of 2 million known species on Earth, isn't it amazing that only one has evolved enough to care about how it got here?
19 posted on 11/23/2004 10:38:51 PM PST by Citizen James (Notorious G.O.P.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway

Ping for later reading.


29 posted on 11/23/2004 11:55:49 PM PST by Kevin OMalley (Kevin O'Malley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lindykim; DirtyHarryY2K; Siamese Princess; Ed Current; Grampa Dave; Luircin; gonow; John O; ...

Moral Absolutes ping - Absolutely the last ping of the day. I probably wouldn't be able to understand the book in question, I find it hard to read very scientific tomes without getting narcolepsy.

But I am always glad such books are there! Maybe I will give it a try anyway. This article confirms something that is very significant - liberals/atheists/secularists [including the subset here of "Darwinists"] always hate to debate fact. They are reduced to name calling, sloganeering, ridicule, straw man arguments, and attempting to define terms and stand on agreed upon foundation which only they believe in. IOW, if a person disagrees with their premise in the beginning (say evolution), then the disagreer is condemned at the outset as a Neanderthal (no pun intended!), knuckledragger, etc.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.

(Another interesting book about the lack of real evidence for evolution, and how the Darwinists lie and cheat, is "Forbidden Archeology - the Hidden History of the Human Race" by Michael Cremo.)


33 posted on 11/24/2004 12:07:35 AM PST by little jeremiah (Moral absolutes are what make humans human.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway

The problem with evolution theory is that it doesn't take into consideration what happened pre-Earth. I believe the 4 billion year fossil record is accurate. I believe that evolution occured. I just think that the Creator planned/designed (whatever it is they do) it all. To me, it's not one or the other, it's both. Geez, what a peacemaker I am.


37 posted on 11/24/2004 1:03:25 AM PST by searchandrecovery (No clever ideas in over: 8 days.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway

ID'ers are cowardly creationists.


41 posted on 11/24/2004 2:54:10 AM PST by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway

....simple-minded religious zealots....

Excellant summation that pretty well describes the dissent


58 posted on 11/24/2004 7:02:01 AM PST by bert (Don't Panic.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway
This collecton of authors reminds me of the gaggle trying to make a buck this year with "Hate Bush" books.

Any anti-Darwin book is bound to have a large audience, and if an author has any claim of authority, well, why not?

Maybe I should write one. I need a retirement stake. [/sarcasm]

59 posted on 11/24/2004 7:02:25 AM PST by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway

Darwin said that if no proof was found that macro-evolution (evolving from one species to another) was wrong.

These guys are agreeing with Darwin when they "doubt" him.


68 posted on 11/24/2004 8:50:42 AM PST by SBOinTX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway; Dataman

As you will be told, there is no such thing.

No intellectual doubts Darwin.

Anyone who doubts Darwin is not an intellectual.

(Rinse, repeat.)

Dan


76 posted on 11/24/2004 10:34:13 AM PST by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway
PHILLIP JOHNSON,

Because who, of all people, is more qualified to determine what is and is not sound biological research than a lawyer?
79 posted on 11/24/2004 10:43:46 AM PST by Dimensio (Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://www.aa419.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway
I'm one of those rare individuals who is neither a Creationist, nor a strict Darwinian, nor an Intelligent Design proponent. But from my contrary perspective, these positions are not all equal in value.

Creationism is not even a scientific argument, and therefore discardable ipso facto. Even if it really happened exactly like that, only an irrational person would assert its relevance to scientific endeavor (null priors and all that).

Intelligent Design is dominated by pseudo-mathematical asshats like Dembski, who invent new math that can be trivially demonstrated to be inconsistent with the mathematics that everyone else uses by any decent mathematician in the field. If ID wants people to listen, they need credible authorities. As for the people who trot out Dembski and Behe as authorities, it brings to mind the old saw "Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him?"

Strict Darwinian speciation is probably incorrect as a system model in practice, even though there is nothing theoretically wrong with the idea in the abstract -- it is mathematically sound. System models such as genomic automata would work on sufficiently faster time scales that it would dominate the speciation process.

And then there are the idiots who think that there can only be either Evolution or Creationism/ID -- a false dichotomy that ignores an astronomical palette of other possibilities. Proving evolution to be incorrect does not even remotely prove Creationism/ID to have validity.

Most people have such a ridiculously narrow conception of the space that their opinions on the matter are worthless. Which isn't unusual, look at the global warming issue...

105 posted on 11/24/2004 1:29:36 PM PST by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway

I thought we we placed here by aliens?


106 posted on 11/24/2004 1:44:19 PM PST by Feiny (Scream if you love silence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sauropod

read later


127 posted on 11/24/2004 6:29:09 PM PST by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway
I don't have enough Faith to believe in evolution. How did life start??

Pray for W and Our Troops

132 posted on 11/24/2004 7:02:22 PM PST by bray (Nam Vets Rock!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nickcarraway

What cracks me up is that "evolutionists" have resorted to redefining "species" to make their case.
Thus, any adaptation WITHIN a species, becomes an evoluition to a new species.


139 posted on 11/24/2004 7:40:54 PM PST by G Larry (Time to update my "Support John Thune!" tagline. Thanks to all who did!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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