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

Skip to comments.

Why Darwinism Is Doomed
WorldNetDaily ^ | 09/27/2006 | Jonathan Wells

Posted on 09/27/2006 9:56:09 AM PDT by SirLinksalot

Why Darwinism is doomed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: September 27, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2006

Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote in 1977: "Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God." Darwinism teaches that we are accidental byproducts of purposeless natural processes that had no need for God, and this anti-religious dogma enjoys a taxpayer-funded monopoly in America's public schools and universities. Teachers who dare to question it openly have in many cases lost their jobs.

The issue here is not "evolution" – a broad term that can mean simply change within existing species (which no one doubts). The issue is Darwinism – which claims that all living things are descended from a common ancestor, modified by natural selection acting on random genetic mutations.

According to Darwinists, there is such overwhelming evidence for their view that it should be considered a fact. Yet to the Darwinists' dismay, at least three-quarters of the American people – citizens of the most scientifically advanced country in history – reject it.

A study published Aug. 11 in the pro-Darwin magazine Science attributes this primarily to biblical fundamentalism, even though polls have consistently shown that half of the Americans who reject Darwinism are not biblical fundamentalists. Could it be that the American people are skeptical of Darwinism because they're smarter than Darwinists think?

On Aug. 17, the pro-Darwin magazine Nature reported that scientists had just found the "brain evolution gene." There is circumstantial evidence that this gene may be involved in brain development in embryos, and it is surprisingly different in humans and chimpanzees. According to Nature, the gene may thus harbor "the secret of what makes humans different from our nearest primate relatives."

Three things are remarkable about this report. First, it implicitly acknowledges that the evidence for Darwinism was never as overwhelming as its defenders claim. It has been almost 30 years since Gould wrote that biology accounts for human nature, yet Darwinists are just now turning up a gene that may have been involved in brain evolution.

Second, embryologists know that a single gene cannot account for the origin of the human brain. Genes involved in embryo development typically have multiple effects, and complex organs such as the brain are influenced by many genes. The simple-mindedness of the "brain evolution gene" story is breathtaking.

Third, the only thing scientists demonstrated in this case was a correlation between a genetic difference and brain size. Every scientist knows, however, that correlation is not the same as causation. Among elementary school children, reading ability is correlated with shoe size, but this is because young schoolchildren with small feet have not yet learned to read – not because larger feet cause a student to read better or because reading makes the feet grow. Similarly, a genetic difference between humans and chimps cannot tell us anything about what caused differences in their brains unless we know what the gene actually does. In this case, as Nature reports, "what the gene does is a mystery."

So after 150 years, Darwinists are still looking for evidence – any evidence, no matter how skimpy – to justify their speculations. The latest hype over the "brain evolution gene" unwittingly reveals just how underwhelming the evidence for their view really is.

The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion – especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing.

This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last.

If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid.

Get Wells' widely popular "Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan Wells is the author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Darwinism and Intelligent Design" (Regnery, 2006) and Icons of Evolution (Regnery, 2000). He holds a Ph.D. in biology from the University of California at Berkeley and a Ph.D. in theology from Yale University. Wells is currently a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: backwardsthinking; crevolist; darwinism; darwinismhasfailed; doomed; evofury; fishwithfeet; headinsand; pepperedmoths; scaredevos; wearealldoomedputz; whyreligionisdoomed; wingnutdaily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600 ... 1,151-1,195 next last
To: 13Sisters76
IN ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS THERE HAS BEEN NOT ONE FACT-NOT ONE- to support darwinism.

Do you believe the Pentagon was bombed by the US Government, the WTC towers imploded with bombs, and that the moon were landings faked too?

501 posted on 09/28/2006 11:23:07 AM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
It is a fair question but the answer can be found in the article - you should read the article before you add comments.

If you really thought so, you wouldn't edit it to make it appear to be asking something it isn't.

502 posted on 09/28/2006 11:24:46 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons

I gather you are an expert in liars. I can't understand that since you believe in the lie of evolution. I believe that takes away your expertism in liars.


503 posted on 09/28/2006 11:28:25 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

And that the earth is flat, and the sun revolves around the earth.... etc.

Why do people get so worked up about this stuff? There is no conflict between belief in God, and evolution. None.


504 posted on 09/28/2006 11:28:36 AM PDT by dashing doofus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 501 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
And of course as a living creature, with no indication of a long fossil history

I am not trying to pick a fight but do you really have knowledge of the fossil history of the mudskipper?

505 posted on 09/28/2006 11:30:51 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 500 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
You jumped into a thread I was having with another person (which is fine) - looks like you may have not attacked Wells personally - but you certainly are not trying to address any of the positions in the article.

I've raised questions about at least one of his conclusions on this thread, but will re-interate for your benefit.

If Darwinism (TToE) is indeed "first and foremost a weapon against religion" then the logical conclusion is that the author(s) of the theory intentionally constructed it for that purpose. If that is the case, then he's implicitly accusing the author(s) of the theory of intentionally construting a fraudulent theory with the specific intent of destroying religion. He's further accusing the vast majority of the scientific community of either being unable to recognize a fraudulent theory when they see one or being complicit in the deception. I seriously question the basis upon which he is able to meke this determination, and find nothing in the article to support such a conclusion.

506 posted on 09/28/2006 11:32:59 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 491 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
If you really thought so, you wouldn't edit it to make it appear to be asking something it isn't.

You are right - I totally misread your question - my bad. I retract (figuratively) my previous comment.

Your position: I just questioned what where he got his degree from has to do with what motivated him to pursue it.

If he got his degrees from a "Moonie" University you might have an argument but he went to UC and UC granted him the Ph.D. so one of the best schools in the country declared that he understood the subject matter and excelled to the point of being granted a Ph.D.

BTW: the topic of this sub-thread is "Evo's dismiss Well's work based on what they think are his motives"

507 posted on 09/28/2006 11:49:11 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog

Wells himself has never attributed his pursuit of biology as being divinely inspired, with the objective of using it to refute TToE?


508 posted on 09/28/2006 11:53:55 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 507 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
If Darwinism (TToE) is indeed "first and foremost a weapon against religion" then the logical conclusion is that the author(s) of the theory intentionally constructed it for that purpose.

That is not a logical conclusion.

Using you logic:

The Beatles intentionally told Mason to kill people because Mason said (paraphrased) "first and foremost the Beatles' records told us to kill"

How something is used has no direct connection to how it was made.

509 posted on 09/28/2006 11:56:35 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 506 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Wells himself has never attributed his pursuit of biology as being divinely inspired, with the objective of using it to refute TToE?

Why are you directing that comment to me?

510 posted on 09/28/2006 11:58:23 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
As if your explanation would be any more convincing than that provided by the preeminent anthropologists or paleontologist who have already tried to convert those who don't believe.
511 posted on 09/28/2006 12:00:46 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of an American Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
His intentions are irrelevant to the validity of his positions. Like I said - why don't you take on his positions rather than attack him personally?

You brought up the subject of intentionality by discussing the definition of "lie" -- a false statement, knowingly made for some purpose.

The statement that evolution is anti-religious is a false statement. If you care to discuss this, kindly answer my questions -- posed several times -- on how evolution's relationship to religion is different from that of other sciences that have findings in conflict with a literal reading of the bible. Why is mathematics not anti-science for differing with the Bible on the value of Pi? Why is physics not anti-science for its estimate of the age of the universe? Why is it not anti-science to say the earth moves?

512 posted on 09/28/2006 12:01:03 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies]

To: TOWER

Sorry, the "fat lady" hasn't sung yet.


513 posted on 09/28/2006 12:04:18 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of an American Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Why are you directing that comment to me?

Because you appear certain that any assumptions about his motives are unfounded and/or erroneous.

514 posted on 09/28/2006 12:05:36 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
I really get a "kick" out of how some people use certain words to indicate that the position they take is un-opposable. For instance "These creationist goons make thinking conservatives look bad.

In other words, "if you do not agree with my position you are a) a goon, and b) incapable of thinking for yourself."

The air is dripping with arrogance here.

515 posted on 09/28/2006 12:09:32 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of an American Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: js1138
You brought up the subject of intentionality by discussing the definition of "lie"

That statement does not make senses. I was not speaking of "intentionality" - I could care less about intention - somebody claimed the Wells piece contained lies and I asked them to point out the lies and reminded them of the definition of lie.

Intention has nothing to do with whether or not a statement is a lie.

516 posted on 09/28/2006 12:10:11 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

Sorry, Billy Jeff doesn't blush - he becomes red in the face from anger though.


517 posted on 09/28/2006 12:14:11 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of an American Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

It has nothing to do with arrogance. It's about education and those who's minds are hermetically sealed shut operating on low battery power.

And yes, those who subscribe to creationism are incapable of really thinking about the reality of the history of the planet and the universe.


518 posted on 09/28/2006 12:14:58 PM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

"However, this is not true if one holds to the literal inerrancy of the Bible.:

Please explain what inerrancy of the Bible.


519 posted on 09/28/2006 12:17:03 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of an American Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Theo
I see you've been here only a couple of years.

I don't believe in tenure or seniority. Someone who has been a member one hour may add more value than someone here five years.

520 posted on 09/28/2006 12:22:34 PM PDT by ExtremeUnction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: js1138
The statement that evolution is anti-religious is a false statement.

That is not true. Please present PROOF that evolution is not anti-religious. Here is evidence it is anti-religious:

"Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God." - Stephen Jay Gould

I am not saying everybody that supports evolution is anti-religious - far from it. But there are some who are some so you can not claim "evolution is anti-religious" is a false statement.

521 posted on 09/28/2006 12:24:23 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
"And yes, those who subscribe to creationism are incapable of really thinking about the reality of the history of the planet and the universe." This is based upon your opinion, and your opinion only. As you are incapable of getting into the minds of other people to know what their thoughts really are, you are incapable of determining whether they posses cogent thought regarding this issue. Just because you've accepted the "dogma" of Darwinism, doesn't place you above those who have not. In the final analysis, this issue will be decided upon the day of Jesus' return and not before (and not by any person of science). No disrespect intended by this post to anyone who has accepted the "dogma" of Darwinism.
522 posted on 09/28/2006 12:25:51 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of an American Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
"Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God."

How is this different from taking away earth's status as the center of the universe? Facts are facts. If your religion is threatened by the findings of science -- such as the fact that the earth moves, the sun does not literally rise and set, the universe is billions of years old, and people really are made of "dust," then you need to tell me how evolution is more threatening than other findings of science.

523 posted on 09/28/2006 12:29:13 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Because you appear certain that any assumptions about his motives are unfounded and/or erroneous.

What the heck are you talking about?

A statement about Wells not being motivated by religion is directed at me - I ask why - and you say "I am certain assumptions about his motives are unfound"

That makes absolutely no sense

I never claimed certainty about anything and I never claimed Wells had no motives.

Earth to tacticalogic
Earth to tacticalogic
Come in tacticalogic

524 posted on 09/28/2006 12:30:01 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Intention has nothing to do with whether or not a statement is a lie.

OK - that did not come out right - intention, other than the intention to deceive - have nothing to do with whether or not a statement is a lie.

525 posted on 09/28/2006 12:35:01 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
I never claimed certainty about anything and I never claimed Wells had no motives.

No, but you do seem to take issue with anyone who questions his motives, and whether those motives bring his objectivitiy into question.

Is it the assumptions about his motives you find unfair, or questioning whether those motives affect his objectivity?

526 posted on 09/28/2006 12:36:40 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

Its not opinion. The fact is many reject the overwhelming scientific evidence and study that proves the Universe is approx 13.7 billion years old, the Earth is 4.55 billion years old, the first living organisms lived around 3.5 billion years ago, early Homo species who used tools lived 2.5 million years ago, and finally Homo sapiens have existed for about 250,000 years.

None of what I posted is in dispute, perhaps the exact dates are unknown, but Darwinism is not dogma.


527 posted on 09/28/2006 12:37:00 PM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

To: All

528 posted on 09/28/2006 12:38:24 PM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: js1138
How is this different from taking away earth's status as the center of the universe?

One statement contains a reference to a deity and one does not

Facts are facts.

Maybe but most of what people think are facts - are not.

If your religion is threatened by the findings of science

They aren't.

But thanks for taking an interest in my personal religious beliefs

529 posted on 09/28/2006 12:40:09 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog; js1138

There are plenty of atheists ready to make the case that God doesn't exist because science, and evolutionary biology in particular, have replaced the need for a God to explain where we came from.

It's interesting to me that we don't hear much from those folks here on FR. IMO it's because they're not here. They're over on DU or out bar-hopping.


530 posted on 09/28/2006 12:40:26 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
"Its not opinion. The fact is many reject the overwhelming scientific evidence and study that proves the Universe is approx 13.7 billion years old, the Earth is 4.55 billion years old, the first living organisms lived around 3.5 billion years ago, early Homo species who used tools lived 2.5 million years ago, and finally Homo sapiens have existed for about 250,000 years."

And none of the above "proves" that one species of animal "evolved" into a different species of animal.
531 posted on 09/28/2006 12:47:23 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of an American Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
No, but you do seem to take issue with anyone who questions his motives, and whether those motives bring his objectivitiy into question.

That statement is not true.

I only questioned if it is valid to attack a position by questioning the authors motives - seems like fallacious logic to me.

Using motive to defeat a position makes about as much sense as if you answer a question correctly on a test but your motive was to get it wrong than the question should be marked wrong since motive is all that matters.

532 posted on 09/28/2006 12:47:26 PM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
I only questioned if it is valid to attack a position by questioning the authors motives - seems like fallacious logic to me.

If we were creatures of pure reason it would be, but we are not.

The author asserts that "Darwinism is first and foremost a weapon against religion". There is no objective evidence provided in the article in support of such an assertion, and it appears to be a purely subjective determination. The author has implicitly imputed the most malicious of motives to the authors and proponent of the TToE by making such a claim. You're asking that he be granted license to do so by virtue of his credentials, and his own motives in doing so held beyond reproach. I don't see how there can be a civil debate on the content of the article under such circumstances.

533 posted on 09/28/2006 1:01:24 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
One statement contains a reference to a deity and one does not

Gould is one person. Evolution is not Gould, and evolution makes no reference to a deity or lack thereof.

Evolution is a forensic statement about history, and it is a process. It is true that the history asserted by evolution conflicts with a literal reading of Genesis.

It is also true that physics conflicts with a literal reading of the Bible. Same with astronomy. Same with geology.

Medicine overturns the statement in the Bible that women shall suffer in childbirth.

How are these not anti-religious?

534 posted on 09/28/2006 1:02:12 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
There are plenty of atheists ready to make the case that God doesn't exist because science, and evolutionary biology in particular, have replaced the need for a God to explain where we came from. It's interesting to me that we don't hear much from those folks here on FR. IMO it's because they're not here. They're over on DU or out bar-hopping.

But they do not accept evolution when it invades their turf. Such as suggesting that individuals differ in their abilities.

535 posted on 09/28/2006 1:04:02 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: js1138

LOL!!

That's true!


536 posted on 09/28/2006 1:11:58 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 535 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
And none of the above "proves" that one species of animal "evolved" into a different species of animal.

open your eyes!

537 posted on 09/28/2006 1:17:57 PM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

Amazing how if someone doesn't agree with another's point of view, they must have their eyes closed. From my viewpoint, my eyes are open, while others are blocked by wearing blinders (tunnel vision).


538 posted on 09/28/2006 1:33:26 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of an American Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
This is not a discussion of science. It is a discussion of Darwinism.

You know, you throw that kind of stuff around on these threads, but it is nonsense and you know it.

TToE is one of the most advanced areas of scientific inquiry. The evidence for TToE dwarfs other hard sciences such as Physics. The more evidence is compiled the framework of TToE is strengthened while details are filled in, adjusted, etc.

A blanket assertion of your type is merely willful ignorance. "Nya Nya" works for Lucy van Pelt but doesn't really cut it here.

539 posted on 09/28/2006 1:36:29 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

From my viewpoint, my eyes are open,

After what I've read the past several days, you could have fooled me. It seems to me you came onto these threads with your mind made up.

540 posted on 09/28/2006 1:37:52 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

I'm still waiting for the "evidence" for your claims that man evolved from some lower life form. A picture of a series of skulls didn't impress me in college, and they still don't impress me. I don't understand why you are so ready to accept common decent when the fossil record is sooooo incomplete when it comes to providing those "transitional" fossils that would clearly indicate a progression of skelatal changes which must be there somewhere if common decent is true.

Is my mind made up? No. Has the evidence been presented as requested? NO!


541 posted on 09/28/2006 1:44:54 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of an American Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 540 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
How is taking the Bible literally to be considered 'putting God in a box'? For me it's simply - God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

Unless you are a Biblical scholar and have read the Bible in its original languages (and understand the contextual subtleties in those languages), there is no way for you to know exactly what God said.

The corollary to your argument is that God has lied to you - yet the Bible clearly states God is incapable of sin and can not tolerate it in his Holy Presence. Don't bother replying - I can guess that your going to tell me Genesis is mostly myth and fable and recorded by mere man therefore full of error and mis-interpreted statements. Hardly!!!

It depends on the context. The purpose of the Bible is to provide spiritual direction. It interacts with history but is always looking at the soul. Thus from a spiritual basis one gets the message pretty clearly: God created the Universe and filled the void. Man was pretty late in the game. Man is here to love God. Woman and Man are for each other. And the whole thing is about Love. Lingustic subtelties don't matter at that level. And in general, the framework established by Genesis is, IMHO, quite correct. But scholar's can't even agree on the original language use of the word "day" in the original language.

Jesus studied the Bible and affirmed the old testament - Please please please try digging a little deeper into your faith rather than relying on worldly experts and their opinions.

Jesus did indeed affirm the Old Testament. It is the foundation for His work and words. But by saying "yes, all that is correct" doesn't add clarity, just authority.

I mean, there are two versions of The Ten Commandments! The Bible contradicts itself "factually" all over the place. Even the story of the road to Damascus has two different versions (which gets worse when read in the original).

This isn't God lying to anyone. It is using a spiritual guide to address non-spiritual matters.

542 posted on 09/28/2006 1:45:54 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
I'm still waiting for the "evidence" for your claims that man evolved from some lower life form. A picture of a series of skulls didn't impress me in college, and they still don't impress me. I don't understand why you are so ready to accept common decent when the fossil record is sooooo incomplete when it comes to providing those "transitional" fossils that would clearly indicate a progression of skelatal changes which must be there somewhere if common decent is true.

IOW, you will keep moving the goal posts.

Is my mind made up? No. Has the evidence been presented as requested? NO!

There is no amount of evidence to "prove" what you are trying to prove. And that has never been a requirement.

You do know that the Atomic Bomb was built based almost completely on theory and inference. Before the first one went off, there was a lot of conjecture on what could happen (up to and including cataclysm).

With your kind of thinking it never would have been built.

543 posted on 09/28/2006 1:49:30 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
The science involved in the making of the Atomic Bomb is hardly in the same realm as that used for evolution. You are comparing apples and oranges in order to try to obtain orangutans.
544 posted on 09/28/2006 1:55:14 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of an American Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
*LOL* Evolution is a theory that is supported by a mountain of evidence.

I choose to conclude, based on logical reasoning and analysis, that the evidence, in general, proves the theory.

Ken Ham takes the same evidence and reaches manifestly illogical and ridiculous conclusions.

Some may choose to call him an idiot. They may be right. If he truly believes what he says, then I guess he's not lying. He's just a moron.

545 posted on 09/28/2006 1:59:52 PM PDT by Al Simmons (Currently shopping for a new tagline...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
That is not true. Please present PROOF that evolution is not anti-religious.

Evolution cannot be pro- or anti- ANYTHING. It is a theory, not a person. it is no more anti-religious than mathematics.

Here is evidence it is anti-religious: "Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God." - Stephen Jay Gould

Straw man. That is evidence that a person can USE TToE to push an anti-religion agenda.

I am not saying everybody that supports evolution is anti-religious - far from it. But there are some who are some so you can not claim "evolution is anti-religious" is a false statement.

So if there is one false Christian minister then all of Christianity is false?

Non sequitur of the highest order. Biggest one we have seen on these threads in quite some time (and that is saying something).

546 posted on 09/28/2006 2:03:40 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
"Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God." - Stephen Jay Gould"

Gould came from a family of Marxist atheists. So his views on the matter were fixed long before he became a scientist.

Evolution is a theory that is religion-neutral. Therefore "evolution is anti-religious" IS a false statement.

547 posted on 09/28/2006 2:04:20 PM PDT by Al Simmons (Currently shopping for a new tagline...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
I'm still waiting for you to respond to my request from several days ago. The exchange was this..

You:When they actually produce the missing link, then I'll accept their theory.

Me:Since this is what you require, please define this 'missing link' in detail sufficient to potentially classify any future discovery as being 'your' missing link. Please be as detailed in your description as possible.

If you really have an open mind, you could and would provide what I am reasonably requesting. You state you require specific evidence to convince you, and that nothing presented to date is sufficient, yet you will not describe, in any detail at all much less detail sufficient to identify it as such, what this evidence would be, while claiming all of the evidence presented to you is insufficient.

548 posted on 09/28/2006 2:04:59 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
The science involved in the making of the Atomic Bomb is hardly in the same realm as that used for evolution.

The methods and scientific processes are the same. The reasoning is the same. The use of "evidence" and theorizing is the same. How do you think miracle drugs get invented? It is from understanding the underlying fundamentals of TToE and applying those foundations.

You are comparing apples and oranges in order to try to obtain orangutans.

To save time, do you just put your goal posts on roller skates?

549 posted on 09/28/2006 2:06:47 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
"And none of the above "proves" that one species of animal "evolved" into a different species of animal."

'Having eyes they do not see, having ears they do not hear...'

550 posted on 09/28/2006 2:06:51 PM PDT by Al Simmons (Evolution and Creationism are unrelated branches of different disciplines and are not contradictory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600 ... 1,151-1,195 next last

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.

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