Skip to comments.Darwinist Ideologues Are on the Run
Posted on 01/30/2006 10:27:35 PM PST by Sweetjustusnow
The two scariest words in the English language? Intelligent Design! That phrase tends to produce a nasty rash and night sweats among our elitist class.
Should some impressionable teenager ever hear those words from a public school teacher, we are led to believe, that student may embrace a secular heresy: that some intelligent force or energy, maybe even a god, rather than Darwinian blind chance, has been responsible for the gazillions of magnificently designed life forms that populate our privileged planet.
The theory that GOD created it all.
By what process?
In any case, that's neither a theory in the scientific sense nor an explanation.
I am beginning to reach that conclusion. If that is the case, then I wish him well tilting at windmills.
"Why in the world would they? Your question shines a brutally bright spotlight on your ignorance."
Nice try, but YOU are supposedly the 'evolution' expert, so YOU need to answer why the apes which live today somehow managed to escape the evolutionary process which gradually turned their ancestors into humans. How did they manage to cheat nature and escape their evolutionary fate?
Why are there no written historical documents recorded by humans detailing their (allegedly) intelligent, but sub-human beings that contested them for land, food, etc?..."
"Huh? Your question shines an even more brutally bright spotlight on your ignorance."
I don't expect a Darwinist to be able to think deeply enough to conceptualize this rather basic dictum, but if over millions of years there were a gradual change where apes were transforming into humans, there would be long periods where the evolutionary process remained static, and your part-monkey-part-human ancestors would have thrived and left endless amounts of fossils from their bodies, skulls, shelters, weapons, tools, etc. But we have no such thing, all we have are ape fossils and very primitive human remnants. There is still NO MISSING LINK. "Piltdown Man" is still the closest thing you've got to the proverbial missing link.
But to take your little Darwinist mind even deeper into my thought, the various climate and environmental differences on the earth would have certainly affected the 'evolutionary' process of these apes, allowing for some of them to remain ape-like for a longer period of time than the others, others to evolve closer to human beings, and still others to have already fully evolved. If this did not happen, then you don't have evolution you have UNIVERSAL INSTANT CHANGE, which contradicts everything Darwin theorized.
Now, if you have fairly intelligent apes, other even more developed apes, apes that are now almost human, and recently evolved but fully human people, then, (unless they were all prototypes of modern day peace protesters), you'd have inevitable clashes between the species. There would assuredly have been battles over territory, food, prey, water, shelter; and even clashes for fear of each other.
Fully developed humans are extremely intelligent beings. They build marvelous structures, they make fascinating weapons and tools, they leave wonderful art everywhere they exist, and they develop language. (In fact an effective language would have developed even before they became fully human). With this language, humans speak, write and record things. They make carvings, drawings, paintings and leave writings. In short, they leave some history of themselves; they are humans, after all. Why didn't these humans leave any record whatsoever of there being another form of being which was close to them but more primitive, more ape-like? Where are the remnants of the inevitable tribal battles between these closely related species, replete with bones from both humans and semi-humans? Where is the decisive evidence of evolution aside from in the minds of Darwinites?
For you Darwin worshippers, the many holes, missing links and endless unknowns of 'evolution' are conveniently filled in with astounding conjecture, and you trust in this conjecture and theory with a blind faith that is baffling because it trusts in no intelligent Cause of life, no reason for anything. And yet we are REASONABLE beings. But this kind of blind faith is not really faith at all, it's the perfect example of human pride.
What is the function of the human appendix? Did it once have a purpose that has since been lost? Ross Rowland Great Falls, Va.
Loren G. Martin, professor of physiology at Oklahoma State University, replies: "For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals.
"Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions. Lymphoid tissue begins to accumulate in the appendix shortly after birth and reaches a peak between the second and third decades of life, decreasing rapidly thereafter and practically disappearing after the age of 60. During the early years of development, however, the appendix has been shown to function as a lymphoid organ, assisting with the maturation of B lymphocytes (one variety of white blood cell) and in the production of the class of antibodies known as immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies. Researchers have also shown that the appendix is involved in the production of molecules that help to direct the movement of lymphocytes to various other locations in the body. "In this context, the function of the appendix appears to be to expose white blood cells to the wide variety of antigens, or foreign substances, present in the gastrointestinal tract. Thus, the appendix probably helps to suppress potentially destructive humoral (blood- and lymph-borne) antibody responses while promoting local immunity. The appendix--like the tiny structures called Peyer's patches in other areas of the gastrointestinal tract--takes up antigens from the contents of the intestines and reacts to these contents. This local immune system plays a vital role in the physiological immune response and in the control of food, drug, microbial or viral antigens. The connection between these local immune reactions and inflammatory bowel diseases, as well as autoimmune reactions in which the individual's own tissues are attacked by the immune system, is currently under investigation.
"In the past, the appendix was often routinely removed and discarded during other abdominal surgeries to prevent any possibility of a later attack of appendicitis; the appendix is now spared in case it is needed later for reconstructive surgery if the urinary bladder is removed. In such surgery, a section of the intestine is formed into a replacement bladder, and the appendix is used to re-create a 'sphincter muscle' so that the patient remains continent (able to retain urine). In addition, the appendix has been successfully fashioned into a makeshift replacement for a diseased ureter, allowing urine to flow from the kidneys to the bladder. As a result, the appendix, once regarded as a nonfunctional tissue, is now regarded as an important 'back-up' that can be used in a variety of reconstructive surgical techniques. It is no longer routinely removed and discarded if it is healthy.
Perhaps one of the others can pitch in.
But the problem is, because of your pre-existing belief, you tend not to believe anything we post to you anyway.
There are actually lots of transitional fossils. But I think the best evidence is in the DNA and genetic studies.
Anyone can call themselves a Pastor.
Do you want me to help you fill out the tax forms?
Well said indeed! Ahh yes, pride.... It's very ironic that those who randomly evolved from monkeys or pond scum are so prideful of themselves and their 'supposed' knowledge, and those of us who were fearfully and wonderfully made by a creator of unfathomable wisdom and intelligence have no problem admitting we don't know it all.
An algorithm is an abstraction that may be applied to any physical phenomenon. As such it repesents the phenomenon and is not identified coterminously with the same. Mathematical equations, too, are representative of abstract thought. Attributing the variation of specices solely to mutations and natural selection and nothing more is certainly an interesting way to interpret the data, but there are any number of theories that could be just as explanatory, especially since both of these are applied post facto. Neither an abstract mathematical equation, nor conjectures related to causes of speciation, have need of making direct reference to theological ramifications. But it is generally held that science seeks accurately to explain objective reality. It is free to do so in terms of intelligent design.
My brother in law is half German, and lives on the east coast, so what does that do to your own logic?
But I think you're mistaken about my logic, geographically relocating humans has nothing to do with 'evolving', it's just relocating. Apes can relocate without becoming human beings, no? Nor does my logic assert that Germans were once another species. I think you'd better take a check on your own logic.
If you think examining the actual evidence and research is "worthless", then it's clear why you're an anti-evolution creationist, and attack scientific findings. So tell me, how's life back in the sixteenth century? You've got a lot of company with the Muslims.
Opinion is not evidence,
Which is why I posted a lot of evidence, and very little opinion.
and all you ever post is highly subjective opinion,
Wow, you're really unable to tell the difference, aren't you?
and out and out falsehood.
Support this slander, now. Or don't, and make it clear to all the lurkers just what a disgusting liar you are, like all too many other anti-evolutionists.
Stephen Gould's admission that the evidence didn't exist is all we need to judge the credibility of the tripe you constantly post to disrupt these threads.
"Our confidence that evolution occurred centers upon three general arguments. First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and laboratory. [...]Do even you believe the falsehoods that pour out of your brain? And is "lying for Jesus" really the best you can do?
The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not commonand should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [...]
Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I amfor I have become a major target of these practices.
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationistswhether through design or stupidity, I do not know as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."
Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. [...]
I am both angry at and amused by the creationists; but mostly I am deeply sad."
-- Stephen Jay Gould, "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes" (1994)
Will you have enough honor to retract your false claim about Gould? And about me? Or will you be a typical anti-evolution creationist and have absolutely no shame whatsoever, not a shred of concern about truth?
To the folks on editor-surveyor's ping list -- do you approve of his grossly lying and slandering in order to try to further creationism? Yes or no?
Actually, there are such Germans (and Poles and Czechs) living in Texas! No what, goodbye to Darwin and all that?
Science is more than Baconian inductivism. You've "lawyered" your own definition of science, too, by insisting (on a non-empirical basis) that it must only deal with natural phenomena, with "natural" being a term that is wholly arbitrary. Again, as long as I know where you're coming from, I will generally understand why you come to the conclusions you do. The results are consistent with your assumptions, as they should be. The ubiquitous presence of organized matter that perfroms specific functions is also consistent with the assumption that the universe is a product of intelligent design, as it should be.
I may pray for you -- to Darwin, of course.
He DOES answer prayer, right.
And inasmuch as you are CLEARLY one of the enlightened ones, answer the question posited in my post, to wit:
What or who lit the fuse?
Since blue is my least favorite complexion color, I will NOT be holding my breath awaiting your reply.
No scientific theory requires a god. Why single out evolution?
Auto repair doesn't require a God either, I'm waiting for ShadowAce to next declare:
"Auto repair makes at least one major assumption that cannot be proven by science. It assumes that there is no God. Yes it does, as it attempts to use nothing but tools and diagnostics to repair cars. There is no reference to a God (or His absence) anywhere within the auto repair manual, thus it assumes He is persona non grata."Then insert "meteorology", "computer programming", or hundreds of other fields of study for "auto repair" and rinse, repeat.
Think ShadowAce will get a clue now?
Creationist lie #71,482 -- collect the whole set!
I'll believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. Science will eventually, probably not in our lifetime, but will prove it was the hand of GOD.
Behold, the anti-evolution creationist:
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.