Why Darwinism Is Doomed

To: ClearCase_guy

181 posted on 09/27/2006 1:22:50 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)

To: SirLinksalot

So he belongs to a cult. That shouldn't be a reflection on his mental faculties at all! (/sarc)

182 posted on 09/27/2006 1:25:03 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)

What do Moonies think of Jesus anyway?

183 posted on 09/27/2006 1:25:32 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)

Do you know what the "peril" is to a Moonie?

184 posted on 09/27/2006 1:26:55 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)

So we are to assume that you have a full understanding of the universe based on your stated beleive in Darwinism. And further that anyone questioning the science of people with an obvious agenda are ignorant? Just wondering not attacking.

NO! absolutely not. and in Darwinism I believe that although the basic tenant is correct, there is so many twists and turns to both human and animal evolution, that no-one can really know the whole story....ever.

people who question the science of people with an obvious agenda, could also be scientists. thats one thing scientist do...question.

I for one question global warming as bad science.

Global Warming

185 posted on 09/27/2006 1:28:04 PM PDT by Vaquero ("An armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)

To: muawiyah; DannyTN

Quit dismissing the YEC's.

They are not strawmen.

186 posted on 09/27/2006 1:29:34 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)

To: Cinnamon Girl

187 posted on 09/27/2006 1:31:32 PM PDT by Vaquero ("An armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)

I would disagree that progressive secularists would agree with your assertion.

Evolution is a field of biologists, not "progressive secularists", thus such a disagreement is not based upon valid authority.

Evolution is used as a means to dissuade our population that God had a hand in creating life.

The theory of evolution neither states nor implies this. Attempting to "use" the theory to promote such a claim is impossible without lying about what the theory states.

This is the argument being played out. Secularists vs. Christian Fundamentalists.

The ideological debates between "secularists" and "Christian Fundamentalists" has no bearing on a theory in biological science.

Secularists have won because Christians have not been willing to challenge their assertions on Evolution and the Big Bang.

If, as you suggest, "secularists" are attempting to use the theory of evolution as an attack against "Christian Fundamentalists", then the correct response is to point out that the theory has no bearing on a debate over religious ideology. Attacking the theory itself shows only that the Christian Fundamentalists are falling for the lie that the theory of evolution has theological implications.

Two theories which have no proof

No theory in science "has proof". Theories are never proven.

or are mathematically impossible.

Please cite the relevant calculations to show this impossibility.

Cant evolution be used a scientific theory, to describe how a single cell would evolve into a more complex (many cell) organism?

Yes.

If so what is the natural selection process to create the first strand of DNA?

If DNA emerged from natural selection, it did so as a result of imperfectly replicating chains of molecules being viable enough to continue forming in longer and longer chains, possibyl emerging from RNA strands. However, information on this subject is insufficient to state that natural selection is directly responsible for the emergence of DNA.

These have to be answered before evolution can move from theory to fact.

Theories do not "move" to fact. A fact is a single data point, a description of an observation. A theory is an attempt to explain the cause for a collection of facts. An explanation does not "move" to an observation.

A theory should be open to challenge; if not then it is dead.

The theory of evolution is open to challenge. Thus far no challenge has successfully falsified it.

Evolutionists have used their theory to "disprove" God - to say otherwise is refuting the current debate being waged in our schools

Please demonstrate that the theory of evolution is used to "disprove" God in schools where it is taught.

Evolution is a tool to claim something that is not provable.

All theories in science are "not provable". Why do you single evolution out for attack on this basis?

188 posted on 09/27/2006 1:31:44 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)

To: Last Visible Dog

God by definition is a matter of faith - I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
I'm not barking up any tree. Put my statement back in context.
.

189 posted on 09/27/2006 1:32:15 PM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)

To: Last Visible Dog

Personal attack alert.

Is that all you have?

190 posted on 09/27/2006 1:32:27 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)

There are gnostic deists.

191 posted on 09/27/2006 1:35:18 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)

To: Last Visible Dog

If the first lifeforms were created by a God or "nothing", how would that change the mechanics of evolution?

192 posted on 09/27/2006 1:38:04 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)

To: Last Visible Dog

193 posted on 09/27/2006 1:48:18 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)

To: Revolting cat!

"but don't call me anti-science!"

194 posted on 09/27/2006 1:50:23 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)

To: Last Visible Dog

Mentioning mules reminds me of the Neo-Darwinist beleif that two similar things not being able to reproduce is the only and solid proof of specizations. Interesting. So does that mean a horse and a donkey are the same species since they can reproduce?

Wrong.

Different species are defined as groups who do NOT reproduce, not those who CAN'T.

You might want to read up on the subject a bit more.

195 posted on 09/27/2006 1:52:36 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)

To: taxesareforever

196 posted on 09/27/2006 1:53:15 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)

To: Cinnamon Girl

Wow. That's so insightful.

197 posted on 09/27/2006 1:54:24 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)

And hen I will take you on a tour of the same museum and reexplain it...from a creationist perspective.

198 posted on 09/27/2006 2:01:22 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)

To: stands2reason

If the first lifeforms were created by a God or "nothing", how would that change the mechanics of evolution?

It won't

199 posted on 09/27/2006 2:02:29 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog

To: stands2reason

Different species are defined as groups who do NOT reproduce, not those who CAN'T.

Can you provide supporting evidence for this claim?

So me and Pamela Anderson are different species because we do NOT reproduce (it is not because we can't) I think your statements are not very well "fleshed out"

You might want to read up on the subject a bit more.

You might want to provide some supporting evidence for YOUR claims - we are not going to take you word on it.

200 posted on 09/27/2006 2:07:27 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794