Posted on 10/03/2005 6:22:51 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
I hope he hasn't tried this experiment himself.
Creationism evolves too.
Then rebut the point, if you can.
Given the way he's ranting nonsense IN ALL CAPS in subsequent posts, I'm thinkin' drug-induced.
Maybe he's Howard Dean.
Really?
Can you point me to a source which states that evolution theory predicts that a frog pulverized in a blender will spontaneously reassemble?
This is, after all, what you are claiming evolution theory EXACTLY states.
FACTS!!!??? WHAT FACTS???? there isn't ONE FACT about evolution theory that holds water
You can cover your eyes and ears all you want. That you refuse to accept it doesn't change reality.
is it a FACT that somehow an "entity" formed in nothing, from nothing exploded and evolved into everything?? That's no fact!!! That is a BELIEF, a RELIGION. It requires a leap of faith. And that's just the beginning. Somehow, it rained on a rock floating in space (with no atmosphere) for millions of years, creating rock soup, and somehow organic life sprang forth out of nothing, suddenly a cell formed, and in order to do that, a DNA atom with a library of complex information just "happened" to form, all these other ingredients just "happened" to be there at the same time, and them, if that isn't miraculous enough all life came from that over billions of years. HA! that isn't FACT!
As you have undoubtedly been told numerous times, evolution theory says NOTHING about the origin of life. If that is your sole objection, then you can breathe easier.
Gee, I'm not sure what your point is, but if this is what you're teaching your children http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1493429/posts?page=38#38 I have my doubts about the accuracy of their homeschool education.
My pleasure.
Darwin for one:
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible. (Darwin, Origin of Species, 155.)
"Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? (Darwin, Origin of Species, 143.)
"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." (Ibid., 230)
"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed." (Ibid., 149)
The late Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University:
"The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Statis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear… 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. 6 The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." (Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 5, 1977)
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal:
"..I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." (Colin Patterson, personal communication. Luther Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, 1988, 88-90.)
David B. Kitts. PhD (Zoology) is Head Curator of the Department of Geology at the Stoval Museum. In an evolutionary trade journal, he wrote:
"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" (Evolution, vol. 28, 467.)
N. Heribert Nilsson, a famous botanist, evolutionist and professor at Lund University in Sweden:
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed… The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled." (Nilsson quoted in The Earth Before Man, p. 51.)
In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions… these have not been found -- yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks. (David M. Raup, "Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, vol. 213, July 1981, 289)
Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us?… The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record. (Luther D. Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, 1988, 9.)
And there are many many more.
ROFL!! The Howard Dean of Creationism...
...and then Noah's family and all the animals boarded the AAAAARRRK!!!!
;-)
...and then Noah's family and all the animals boarded the AAAAARRRK!!!!
ROFL
Your logic for distorting science to protect children is an advanced case of political correctness. Never mind the facts. Teach people what is needed to make them into good, obedient citizens.
I'm not going to bother looking everything up for you. it's been posted many times over. The point made is that evolution theory says life created itself. the frog is an example of what that theory assumes happened. In fact, that blended frg is giving evolution theory a chance, because all the ingredients are there, unlike at the begining of time on this planet. "evolution theory says NOTHING about the origin of life
there you go with your fingers again. Go google it for yourself. I'm sick and tired of posting it for you "evolutionists" who have obviously not read the theory you proffess to support.
That goes for you too.
You can't study DNA? I didn't know that....
How do YOU suppose it got there? Did it magicly apear on it's own? You can't study supernatural assumtion. See how that works? TBBT is supernatral assumption at a much grandeir scale that belief in God and ID.
| by Nathan Zachary I condensed much of the information I gathered to put in MY post... It is only a post however, not a book which would require a bibliography. |
by Randall Niles |
| Since Darwin put forth his original theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of evolutionary transition found thus far in the fossil record. In Darwin's own words, if his theory of "macro-evolution" were true, we would see a vast number of fossils at intermediate stages of biological development. In fact, based on standard mathematical models, we would see far more transitional forms in the fossil record than complete specimens. However, we see none -- not one true transitional specimen has ever been found. | Since Darwin put forth his original theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of evolutionary transition found thus far in the fossil record. In Darwin’s own words, if his theory of “macro-evolution” were true, we would see a vast number of fossils at intermediate stages of biological development. In fact, based on standard mathematical models, we would see far more transitional forms in the fossil record than complete specimens. However, we see none – not one true transitional specimen has ever been found. |
| Our museums now contain hundreds of millions of fossil specimens (40 million alone are contained in the Smithsonian Natural History Museum). If Darwin's theory were true, we should see at least tens of millions of unquestionable transitional forms. We see none. | Our museums now contain hundreds of millions of fossil specimens (40 million alone are contained in the Smithsonian Natural History Museum). If Darwin’s theory were true, we should see at least tens of millions of unquestionable transitional forms. We see none. |
| Author Luther Sunderland saw the problems with the fossil record, so he determined to get the definitive answer from the top museums themselves. Sunderland interviewed five respected museum officials, recognized authorities in their individual fields of study, including representatives from the American Museum, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and the British Museum of Natural History. None of the five officials were able to offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that document the transformation of one Kind of plant or animal into another. | Author Luther Sunderland saw the same issue, so he determined to get the definitive answer from the top museums themselves. Sunderland interviewed five respected museum officials, recognized authorities in their individual fields of study, including representatives from the American Museum, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and the British Museum of Natural History. None of the five officials were able to offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that document the transformation of one Kind of plant or animal into another. |
| Therefore, based on Darwin's own words, his original theory of macro-evolutionary progression didn't happen. Paleontology was a brand new scientific discipline in the mid-1800's, and now, roughly 150 years later, we know that the fossil record doesn't provide the support Darwin himself required. | OK, I just wanted to complete that loop. In my research, I haven’t found even one transitional fossil. Therefore, based on Darwin’s own words, his original theory of macro-evolutionary progression didn’t happen. Paleontology was a brand new scientific discipline in the mid-1800’s, and now, roughly 150 years later, we know that the fossil record doesn’t provide the support Darwin himself required. |
| Remarkably, the SETI project, a multi-billion dollar effort to scan the cosmos for some indication of intelligence, is based on one simple notion. If we find radio waves that contain any type of ordered sequence of sounds, then we've discovered intelligence somewhere in the universe! Think about that? The whole premise of these scientists is that you can't have ordered sound (such as the blips and dashes in a Morse code transmission) without an intelligent force behind them. In the case of evolution theory however, rather than admit the theory is flawed beyond repair, they ignore the evidence of inteligent design to protect their religion. | Remarkably, the SETI project, a multi-billion dollar effort to scan the cosmos for some indication of intelligence, is based on one simple notion. If we find radio waves that contain any type of ordered sequence of sounds, then we’ve discovered intelligence somewhere in the universe! Think about that? The whole premise of these scientists is that you can’t have ordered sound (such as the blips and dashes in a Morse code transmission) without an intelligent force behind them. To me, that’s huge! |
Ah yes...plagiarism isn't really plagiarism if you add or subtract a sentence or two, right?
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.