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 ... 501-550551-600601-650 ... 1,151-1,195 next last
To: drangundsturm
I partially agree with your twisted logic, in particular about abortion. People who have abortions would be selecting out of the gene pool not necessarily a specific trait geared towards abortion, but rather, selecting out a particular type of selfishness where abortion is percieved as an easy way out. That would be for a certain level of promescuity and general sense of irresponsibility.

But with respect to a belief in evolution, I don't think abortion and evolution have the same genetic origin. And a belief in evolution is not a psychological trait unless you include general, rational thought as a psychological trait. To select against evolution would require selection against scientific rationality in general. You cannot reject one result of science selectively. Empirically, I've seen this in action. My co-workers, fellow scientists, who are ardent creationists, are also the worst for designing controlled experiments. Those who see evolution as scientifically valid are also the most skilled in experimental design and have advanced more than the creation absolutists. But if evolution, for whatever reason, offered the intellectually challeneged greater reporductive advantage, then future generations will become more intellectually challenged. The population will become more and more stupid and society will collectively forget why stupidity blossoms. Then, when greater intellect and rationality confir greater reproductive success, the balance will swing back.

551 posted on 09/28/2006 2:07:55 PM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons
Therefore "evolution is anti-religious" IS a false statement.

When I see that sort of thing, I remember that scene in "Short Circuit" where the doctors explain that Number 5 "doesn't get happy, it doesn't get sad. It just runs programs."

Perhaps we are getting a glimpse of what we are up against. The Anthropomorphism of a school of thought.

552 posted on 09/28/2006 2:09:37 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

"If you really have an open mind, you could and would provide what I am reasonably requesting."

Then my request of where are the "transitional" fossil remains of those creatures between what has been found to date is not a sufficient answer to what I'm asking for?

Think. What are the reported time periods between what scientists have uncovered to date? If these fossil remains are, according to common decent" linked by evolution to each other, then would you not reasonably predict that there would be fossilized remains between each of those found in the fossil record in light of the fact that the evolutionary changes are small over any given period of time?

Think. The differences in the present fossilized remains on record are huge. There must be fossilized remains which are closer and closer approximations going out from the oldest to the most modern which would show the evolution from one to the other. It is the fact that between the current fossilized remains exist no other fossilized remains, despite the expansive time between each, which puzzles me. It is this question to which I seek answers.


553 posted on 09/28/2006 2:14:33 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of an American Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons

And having brains they do not reason.


554 posted on 09/28/2006 2:16:14 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of an American Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

"Perhaps we are getting a glimpse of what we are up against. The Anthropomorphism of a school of thought."

I'd be interested in an explanation of what you believe that human qualities are being ascribed to with regard to this topic.


555 posted on 09/28/2006 2:19:11 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of an American Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 552 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
"There must be fossilized remains which are closer and closer approximations going out from the oldest to the most modern which would show the evolution from one to the other. It is the fact that between the current fossilized remains exist no other fossilized remains, despite the expansive time between each, which puzzles me. It is this question to which I seek answers."

Unfortunately, geologic realities sour your supposition. 'The Fossil Record' is not a library like The Library of Congress; its more like digging through the ruins of Pompey. The record is fragmentary, partly because only a tiny, tiny, tiny, percent of animals/plants are EVER fosilized, then you have erosion through the eons destroying much of the record, and, finally, most of the record is inaccessible because it is buried deep underground, under the sea, or inside mountains.

However, even given the paucity of available remains, evidence of evolution is irrefutable - ever seen the fossils showing the evolution of the horse - from a small mammal with 5 toes to the horse we see today?

If you won't believe THAT evidence then (to use a paraphrase), you wouldn't believe if one rose from the dead....

556 posted on 09/28/2006 2:21:13 PM PDT by Al Simmons (Evolution and Creationism are unrelated branches of different disciplines and are not contradictory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 553 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

Improved the tag line...


557 posted on 09/28/2006 2:23:13 PM PDT by Al Simmons (Science and Religion are unrelated disciplines and are not philosophically contradictory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

From the article itself:

"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."

I am really trying to stay on topic here. I stand by my earlier response.


558 posted on 09/28/2006 2:29:25 PM PDT by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Naziism was in 1937.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
So I take it you are now admitting you cannot define the 'missing link' which you previously stated would convince you. You've now modified your evidence requirements from a 'missing link' to many missing links. I'll assume you are not moving the goalposts intentionally and just didn't elaborate previously.

So how many 'missing links' are missing, in your view? I assume you realize that every fossil found that fits into a 'gap' in the fossil record between two previously discovered fossils creates two new gaps. So the more fossils found that fit into gaps between previously discovered fossils the more gaps (missing links) are created. At some point, reasonable people conclude that there is a connection and progression between the data points, especially when that connection is supported by other independent lines of evidence.

So I'm back to my original question to you. What would it take to convince you? You do not seem to be able to state what evidence you require.
559 posted on 09/28/2006 2:36:06 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 553 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons

So, there is no chance that, instead of the evolution of the horse to what we see today, we are looking at different animals which lived during different periods of time and which are only related superficially?


560 posted on 09/28/2006 2:49:54 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of an American Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
Irrefutable evidence that these "animals" are actually evolutionary changes instead of just distinctly different animals with similarities.
561 posted on 09/28/2006 2:52:21 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of an American Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
I'd be interested in an explanation of what you believe that human qualities are being ascribed to with regard to this topic

"evolution is anti-religious"

562 posted on 09/28/2006 2:53:27 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

Irrefutable evidence that these "animals" are actually evolutionary changes instead of just distinctly different animals with similarities.

You need to define what you would consider to be 'Irrefutable evidence' for anyone to be able to say it's possible to provide such evidence.

563 posted on 09/28/2006 2:56:10 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
"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."

Which is why the first tendency is to abandon the thread.

The statement is disengenuous and specious. And, for the most part, wrong.

564 posted on 09/28/2006 2:56:35 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies]

To: ml1954; SoldierDad
You need to define what you would consider to be 'Irrefutable evidence' for anyone to be able to say it's possible to provide such evidence.

So far it appears that "irrefutable evidence" is what ever is provided, plus 1%. And we have irrefutable evidence that SoldierDad doesn't apply the same standard to other branches of science.



565 posted on 09/28/2006 3:02:02 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 563 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Why didn't you answer the question about the hypothetical anesthesiologist?

And I'm guessing you wouldn't ever judge someone for becoming a Muslim, scientologist or Satanist?

Like MLK said (paraphrased and updated) - we need to judge a man by the context of his character and not the color of his skin or his religion

"Updated" -- like adding a factor that involves choice (religion) alongside one that doesn't (skin color)?

We have freedom of religion in this country - I guess you are against freedom - do you want to force your personal religion on other people?

That's an argument a liberal would use. I am not suggesting this fellow not be free to practice his religion. Far from it. I am suggesting that I question ANYONE'S view of reality who joins a cult. You are saying I shouldn't have the right to do that?

FWIW, my religion is not evangelical at all, so it's not possible to force it on others.

566 posted on 09/28/2006 3:05:33 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: ExtremeUnction

For being here a couple of years, you are ignorant of the purpose of FR. You wrote, "Take your scripture and go somehere else. This site is for people who will open their minds and think." That stance is directly counter to the position of FR's founder. Consider how pro-God the founder of FR is:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts

Indeed, this site is for people who are thoughtful.


567 posted on 09/28/2006 3:11:53 PM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog

Group attacks aren't personal. Only personal attacks are disallowed.

When I said, "What a dumba$$" that wasn't personal, see. All I was saying is here comes the nonsense, name-calling, and unsupported accusations.

The above is based on the logic that you hold.

But you aren't that stupid, you know that is a personal attack, just like your bozo alert was.

You are playing games, but what else can one expect from a creo? Honesty? LOL!


568 posted on 09/28/2006 3:19:49 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog

Not bitter or angry. I just don't like to waste my time on fools.

And with that, thank you for reminding me that I am finished with you.

This is my last post to you.


569 posted on 09/28/2006 3:21:27 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason

Not bitter or angry. I just don't like to waste my time on fools.

"Wasting Time On Fools": (MI: Middle Internet) An inevitable occupational risk and negative experience, increasingly and strongly, associated with spending time responding to irrational posts on some Internet forums.

570 posted on 09/28/2006 3:43:41 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 569 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

So, the sense I get from this discussion is that my options are to 1) accept your position that all animals evolved from some other animal or 2)

No, wait, there is no option two in your world.

My father had a similar view -

Rule 1) I am never wrong
Rule 2) If I am ever wrong see rule 1.

Lousy world to be raised in.


571 posted on 09/28/2006 3:44:03 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of an American Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
It is not clear how such a statement qualifies as anthropomorphizing.
572 posted on 09/28/2006 3:45:53 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of an American Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 562 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

Why is it the hostile ones that always accuse me of being bitter and angry?

Gotta be some serious projection going on there...

It's against my religion to be bitter and angry, and I am pretty fricken aware of when I sin, because there's this thing called "guilt" that goes with...


573 posted on 09/28/2006 3:49:31 PM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 570 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad; finnman69
And none of the above "proves" that one species of animal "evolved" into a different species of animal.

Obviously evidence can't prove anything in the sense of a geometrical proof. It can show "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", however.

Here's an interesting and amusing website, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes. Rather than showing the evidence for evolution, it shows a bit of the evidence against intelligent design. Learn about the recurrent laryngeal nerve, then come back and explain why the hypothetical designer was allowed to keep its engineering license!

574 posted on 09/28/2006 3:51:31 PM PDT by Virginia-American (What do you call an honest creationist? An evolutionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Could it be that the American people are skeptical of Darwinism because they're smarter than Darwinists think?

Naw - never - no way!

We is much smarter dan da is!!!


--EvoDude

575 posted on 09/28/2006 4:01:25 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
These creationist goons make thinking conservatives look bad.

How!?

Do EVOLUtionist goons make thinking LIBERALs look bad as well??

576 posted on 09/28/2006 4:02:59 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
It describes a theorized mechanism, one which is perfectly compatible with Christianity. Oh?
577 posted on 09/28/2006 4:03:53 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American

So, a lack of Human understanding of why certain structures are made the way they are is evidence that ID does not exist. Because man (woman) cannot explain these seemingly bizare structures, then God cannot exist. Hmmmmm. Interesting theory. Still doesn't exactly provide any direct evidence of evolution, though, does it?


578 posted on 09/28/2006 4:07:06 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of an American Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 574 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason

Why is it the hostile ones that always accuse me of being bitter and angry? Gotta be some serious projection going on there...

When they run out of substantive arguments and other irrational rhetoric, they accuse everyone who doesn't agree with them of being bitter and angry, not just 'evos'.

579 posted on 09/28/2006 4:08:38 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 573 | View Replies]

To: ml1954; SoldierDad
... I assume you realize that every fossil found that fits into a 'gap' in the fossil record between two previously discovered fossils creates two new gaps. ...

One fact that's not often emphasized is that fossils always fit into these gaps. We never see, for example, fossilized pegasi or centaurs. There are plenty between dinosaurs and birds, or reptiles and mammals, but none whatsoever between mammals and birds.

Don't forget Tiktaalik; the ToE was used to predict what to look for and where to dig - yet more confirmation that there's something real behind the theory.

580 posted on 09/28/2006 4:09:12 PM PDT by Virginia-American (What do you call an honest creationist? An evolutionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American; SoldierDad

One fact that's not often emphasized is that fossils always fit into these gaps. We never see, for example, fossilized pegasi or centaurs. There are plenty between dinosaurs and birds, or reptiles and mammals, but none whatsoever between mammals and birds.

Don't forget Tiktaalik; the ToE was used to predict what to look for and where to dig - yet more confirmation that there's something real behind the theory.

I've concluded, based on his responses to me and others, and his lack of responses to my pointed and specific replies and questions to him, that SoldierDad had his mind made up before he started posting on these threads. He claimed he was open minded, but dismisses all evidence, won't state what evidence would convince him, etc., etc. IOW, the usual package of disingenousness.

581 posted on 09/28/2006 4:17:48 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 580 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
So, a lack of Human understanding of why certain structures are made the way they are is evidence that ID does not exist

No, demonstrably bad design shows that the hypothetical designer is not a good engineer. If human intelligence is able to say that some designs are evidence of intelligence, then that same human intelligence can say that they're evidence of incomepetence.

Because man (woman) cannot explain these seemingly bizare structures, then God cannot exist

Huh? No, it just shows that if these structures were designed, the designer was not a good engineer. It's evidence against the "intelligent" part of ID.

Still doesn't exactly provide any direct evidence of evolution, though, does it?

Are you paying attention? Did you read any of the web site I linked to? It is specifically showing evidence against ID, not evidence for ToE.

So, what's your take on the recurrent laryngeal nerve? The marsupian egg teeth? The platypus teeth that never erupt?

The claim is that the design of living things shows evidence of intelligence. This is showing that some of these designs show signs of stupidity.

582 posted on 09/28/2006 4:25:10 PM PDT by Virginia-American (What do you call an honest creationist? An evolutionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
So, the sense I get from this discussion is that my options are to 1) accept your position that all animals evolved from some other animal or 2)

Provide a valid alternative scientific theory.

You certainly can have an "opinion." But some opintions are valid and othrs are not.

If your opinion was 1+1=3 you would be called on to support your position.

Your opinion against TToE is the same. You don't get to just blatently assert things and not be called to support them.

And the larger problem is people are calling on our schools to teach our schoolchildren that God says 1+1=3.

That is why we man the logic ramparts. To keep America from dumb itself down even further.

If we can keep people away from willfil ignorance, so much the better.

583 posted on 09/28/2006 4:37:19 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

Evolution is not pro- or anti- anything. It just is.

People are pro- or anti- things.

QED, Antropomorphizing.


584 posted on 09/28/2006 4:38:54 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 572 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
How!?

By demonstrating to the Left we are willing to substitute religion for science. And demonstrating our complete and total adherence ot willful ignorance because we either don't understand or don't like the conclusions.

Do EVOLUtionist goons make thinking LIBERALs look bad as well??

Ad hominem "rebuttals" also make conservatives look bad.

585 posted on 09/28/2006 4:41:43 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 576 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
We is much smarter dan da is!!!

I see we are being treated to the standard CR/IDer scintillating displays of logic and argumentation.

586 posted on 09/28/2006 4:43:50 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 575 | View Replies]

To: Theo
Indeed, this site is for people who are thoughtful.

Ok. I "think" that you are annoying me.

587 posted on 09/28/2006 4:48:34 PM PDT by ExtremeUnction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
TToE is the only scientific theory that explains the evidence.

That is ostensibly your opinion and I respect that. Obviously, most Americans ( included educated ones I might) add disagree with you. Calling them un-educated is of course , name calling, not an argument based on evidence.

400 scientists out of how many hundreds of thousands? Every group has a moonbat wing.

Case in point here --- name calling, no evidence presented. No wonder you're not getting anywhere with the majority of Americans.
588 posted on 09/28/2006 4:52:13 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
That is ostensibly your opinion and I respect that. Obviously, most Americans ( included educated ones I might) add disagree with you. Calling them un-educated is of course , name calling, not an argument based on evidence.

There is no other conclusion. You don't get to say "well, 1+1=3 and that is my opinion." You can have an opinion, but you need to defend it if it deals with science.

400 scientists out of how many hundreds of thousands? Every group has a moonbat wing.

Case in point here --- name calling, no evidence presented. No wonder you're not getting anywhere with the majority of Americans.

We have so-called conservatives who fight FOR willful ignorance and embrace and accelerate the dumbing down of America. If "moonbat wing" doesn't fit scientists who should know better, then who can the tag be applied to?

And of course, my underlying point that .0001% or so isn't a meaningful statistic stands.

589 posted on 09/28/2006 4:59:51 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

"If anyone does not believe in Darwinism, i'll take them on a tour in the Museum of Natural History and explain it.

No, thanks. Been there and was convinced that Darwinism is not real science. Darwin, himself, in the end, didn't believe his own theory and turned to God.


590 posted on 09/28/2006 5:19:42 PM PDT by stultorum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: stultorum
Darwin, himself, in the end, didn't believe his own theory

Not true. And people who say things that are not true are called....?? Anyone???

591 posted on 09/28/2006 5:22:14 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 590 | View Replies]

To: Names Ash Housewares

Here you go.

Take a look at this site.

http://www.setterfield.org/relativityandc.html

What is observable and quantifiable can be interpreted in more than one way.

The 'scientific process' is limited *by definition* to natural explanations. Not the best 'a priori' limit to place on your acceptable explanations when supernatural vs natural is the question you are trying to answer.

It is impossible to find evidence of the supernatural in science, *by definition*.

Don't be deceived.


592 posted on 09/28/2006 5:40:01 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

"Not true. And people who say things that are not true are called....?? Anyone???

It's true. It's all over the net, in history books, thought at schools and by our parents.

And people who say that things that are true are not true are called....??

Sorry I had to use your line. LOL!


593 posted on 09/28/2006 5:40:32 PM PDT by stultorum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies]

Geocentric Placemarker
594 posted on 09/28/2006 5:43:15 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: stultorum
It's true. It's all over the net, in history books, thought at schools and by our parents.

That Darwin recanted? It is 100% pure BS. There are NO published History Books that have this lie in them. It is a myth and it is irresponsible to repeat it.

And people who say that things that are true are not true are called....?? Sorry I had to use your line. LOL!

Really, REALLY bad idea. This lie has been squashed on these threads so many times that no one even bothers to bring it up any more.

Until now. Give me a minute, I'll get the proper references.

595 posted on 09/28/2006 5:45:15 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 593 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
The 'scientific process' is limited *by definition* to natural explanations. Not the best 'a priori' limit to place on your acceptable explanations when supernatural vs natural is the question you are trying to answer.

But it is the best way to build an airplane. Or understand the physical Universe's rules.

596 posted on 09/28/2006 5:47:00 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: stultorum

Here you go:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html

I advise you not to pass along misinformation on FR. It never flies.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time. If you repeat it, I will know you are being willfully untruthful.


597 posted on 09/28/2006 5:50:58 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 593 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003; GourmetDan

The 'scientific process' is limited *by definition* to natural explanations. Not the best 'a priori' limit to place on your acceptable explanations when supernatural vs natural is the question you are trying to answer.

Before you get too far into this 'discussion', if you don't already know, you might want to consider that GourmetDan is a geocentrist. That's right, he thinks the earth is the center of the universe.

598 posted on 09/28/2006 5:52:29 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

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

Not of the mudskipper(s) in particular, but I know these fish are Gobies, and I have a pretty strong recollection that Gobies don't appear rather late (for a major group of rayfin fish), I wanna say as late as the Eocene, and in any case long after the first amphibians.

599 posted on 09/28/2006 5:55:11 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: ml1954; GourmetDan
Before you get too far into this 'discussion', if you don't already know, you might want to consider that GourmetDan is a geocentrist. That's right, he thinks the earth is the center of the universe.

Well that explains a lot. It also means he is probably sober ;)

600 posted on 09/28/2006 5:55:15 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 501-550551-600601-650 ... 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