What Are The Darwinists Afraid Of?

The Post Chronicle | 8\07\05 | Patrick J Buchanan

[Dimensio]

The claim here for the Archeoraptor is that the tail and the body come from different animals.

Yes. It was constructed for sale to tourists by a Chinese farmer. There was no deliberate fraud as an attempt to forward the theory of evolution. Peer review by scientists who accept evolution revealed that Archeoraptor wasn't a find of a new species and the idea was discarded. There was no deliberate fraud, it wasn't a hoax. It was a standard case of a find being evaluated on the merits. It just happens that in this case the find was rejected.

Bringing it up doesn't show a weakness in the theory of evolution.

[Tarzan Stripes]

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16

I will not enter into this thread, but to make this one comment. Anyone who is certain there is no God, please make sure that you KNOW the above is not true.

After death, there is zero room for error.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Science has taken place over millennia while assuming the universe is intelligently designed, and it finds the intelligently designed universe that should be expected, with laws of physics, elements that retain consistency, and biological entities that function with information in a machine-like precision far beyond the capacity of intelligent beings to create for themselves.

Evolutionism comes along and assumes otherwise. When asked to explain why it should be accepted as "scientific" when it assumes it operates in a universe other than the one science has typically assumes, it does not have a straightforward answer. It obfuscates, hmm-haws, calls names, snoots, sneers, while happily inserting itself into the science classroom by stealth. It throws the matter of intelligent design back in the face of standard science and demands that it "prove" what has always been its given.

It loudly proclaims it "has all the evidence" when it so happens that science is hardly just a pile of evidence waiting for interpretation, but a process whereby human observers make direct obervations and test them in real time; when it so happens that all the evidence can just as easily be squeezed into the notion that random combinations of matter over an indefinite period of time can result in any historic scene imaginable as it can fit the standard notion that intelligent design is an operative and inherent reality.

There's really no need to address all the claims of evolutionism point by point. Just ask an evolutionist what assumptions he operates under, and watch the panties mutate into contortions not even Darwin would have anticipated. But do not expect a straightforward answer. We're dealing with a religion incapable of recognizing or acknowleding itself.

Meanwhile, science can operate comfortably under the assumption it is working in an intelligently designed universe, and get along very well as it has before, during, and after Darwin.

[Dimensio]

Anyone who is certain there is no God,

To which "God", out of the thousands of deity constructs acknowledged and/or worshipped throughout history, and why?

After death, there is zero room for error.

What are the consequences of "error", how do you know what they are and how do you know that there's no room for error?

Also, what has any of that to do with the theory of evolution?

[js1138]

You are dealing with the old, "Believe what I tell you to or face eternal damnation" ploy. Filthy, sick and disgusting. But if it was good enought for Stalin, it must be good enough for God.

Right?

The really comical thing about this is the that people who use this tactic -- including Muslim extremists -- think they are smart enough to know exactly what it is that God requires in the way of ideology. Not just Love thy neighbor and obey the commandments, but what stories must be accepted as literal historical fact.

[LifeOrGoods?]

Bringing it up doesn't show a weakness in the theory of evolution.

I don't suppose it does.

[mordo]

Bad evidence.. Bringing it up doesn't show a weakness in the theory of evolution..

Yes the peers reviewed it. How much more stronger can it get than that?

Ha HA HA HA HA HAHAHA HAHA.

Its all there cant you you see? The the Big Bang, evolution, man descends from ape. The scientists all agree, and the science is settled. The best minds, they come here and tell us their message. And its all linked together on the Internet.

Ha HA HA HA HA HAHAHA HAHA.

[Dimensio]

Its all there cant you you see? The the Big Bang, evolution, man descends from ape. The scientists all agree, and the science is settled. The best minds, they come here and tell us their message. And its all linked together on the Internet.

You don't actually have any coherent things to say, do you?

[mordo]

Hey!! You had run off and never answered the questions I asked you earlier in this thread!!

[mordo]

Hey!! Don't run away again!! There are questions to be answered!

See.. remember LifeOrGoods?

He made a statement and you converted that into an assumption that life is "working" according to a design and that he has not demonstrated this.

And so I asked Well what about you?
Are you assuming life is "working" yes/no?
Is life "working" according to a design yes/no?
What is your position?
What is your design?
What is your description of a design?
Does it 'look like' evolution? yes/no?

Interesting. You have made a demand that he demonstrate, but who shall it be to?