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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720 ... 1,181-1,195 next last
To: freedumb2003

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

Spending some time proof reading your post would be a good place to start with prevention of dumbing down America.


681 posted on 09/28/2006 8:39:01 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of an American Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 583 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Except that TTOE did not create itself. It was created by human beings. It is not "just is" as you state. Without human beings having created the theory in the first place noone would be having any discussion regarding the theory.


682 posted on 09/28/2006 8:41:28 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of an American Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot; freedumb2003
... Many IDers are agnostic.

For example ...

683 posted on 09/28/2006 8:41:37 PM PDT by Virginia-American (What do you call an honest creationist? An evolutionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 634 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
Spending some time proof reading your post would be a good place to start with prevention of dumbing down America.

I am not advocating bad spelling as a proper course of learning. Individual goofs are not the same as a concerted attack on science.

684 posted on 09/28/2006 8:43:24 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 681 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
Except that TTOE did not create itself. It was created by human beings. It is not "just is" as you state.

All science is created by someone. TToE is no more pro- or anti- anything than mathematics (also created by human beings) is pro- or anti- anything.

Without human beings having created the theory in the first place noone would be having any discussion regarding the theory.

Without human beings having created the theory in the first place there would be a lot fewer of us here, since TToE is the basis for any real Life Science research, which has led to the life sustaining drugs and medical protocols that we take for granted.

685 posted on 09/28/2006 8:46:52 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 682 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons
If he truly believes what he says, then I guess he's not lying. He's just a moron.

Better a moron than a believer of the Big Lie.

686 posted on 09/28/2006 8:51:06 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

"Merely saying that the theory of evolution is "doomed" does not actually demonstrate that the theory is, in fact, doomed.

So, how do you communicate the thought/idea that the theory of evolution is, indeed, dead, other than through communication, both written and oral, of the evidence?


687 posted on 09/28/2006 8:54:10 PM PDT by stultorum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]

To: scripter

That's the one!

Lady Hopes and someone else were testimony to Darwin's recanting of his theory, from what I've read in various sources.


688 posted on 09/28/2006 8:56:45 PM PDT by stultorum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

Great testimony. It's only AFTER finding The Truth, can one see how they were deceived.


689 posted on 09/28/2006 9:05:37 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies]

To: stultorum

Off-topic: I couldn't find my posts! I was looking in the previous page. LOL! Well, I'm neither smart nor intelligent, hence my user name.

But I know one thing for sure: we did not descent (or is it ascend?) from monkies, as Darwin's theory asserts. The evidence? Go to a museum of natural history and there one will find all the evidence, if he/she's perceptive to discern the inconsistencies and distortions of Darwinists.

Got go now.

Good night and God bless you all.


690 posted on 09/28/2006 9:08:27 PM PDT by stultorum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 688 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
"Jorge, in what reality does evolution (as a theory) deny the existence of God? I will agree that there may be evolutionary scientists who might deny it, but the theory itself has no opinion on creationism or order from chaos theories. It simply attempts to explain the order of life on this planet."


To jump in on this, the TToE was created by humans. "IT" did not come into being in a vacuum. "IT" is dependent upon humans to determine what "IT" is. Therefore, "IT" doesn't actually exist at all. The theory takes on the life it has only in the context of humans who proffer up the tenets of the theory. Therefore, "IT", in the context of human beings interpreting it, can and does deny the existence of God.
691 posted on 09/28/2006 9:16:51 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of an American Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever; Al Simmons
Better a moron than a believer of the Big Lie.

Yeah! Don't buy into that moon landing nonsense!

692 posted on 09/28/2006 9:20:51 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 686 | View Replies]

To: stultorum
So, how do you communicate the thought/idea that the theory of evolution is, indeed, dead, other than through communication, both written and oral, of the evidence?

Presentation of evidence that the theory of evolution is "doomed" is the only adequate means of demonstrating and communicating that the theory is, in fact, doomed. Thus far, no evidence that is not founded upon factually incorrect -- such as the claim that the second law of thermodynamics makse evolution impossible ss claims, claims irrelevant to the validity of the theory -- such as stating that Issac Newton was a Christian -- or claims that are both factually incorrect and irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution -- such as the bogus claim that Darwin 'recanted' the theory near the end of his life -- have been presented.
693 posted on 09/28/2006 9:21:19 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic

Hey, I'm a follower of Big Lies and I don't mind saying so.


694 posted on 09/28/2006 9:24:39 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 692 | View Replies]

To: stultorum
But I know one thing for sure: we did not descent (or is it ascend?) from monkies, as Darwin's theory asserts.

The theory of evolution does not "assert" this. The theory of evolution explains the mechanism by which humans and extant monkeys descended from common ancestry.

The evidence? Go to a museum of natural history and there one will find all the evidence, if he/she's perceptive to discern the inconsistencies and distortions of Darwinists.

Given that you have erroneously stated that the theory of evolution postulates that humans "descented" from "monkies", I do not believe it reasonable to conclude that you have adequately evaluated all available evidence.
695 posted on 09/28/2006 9:24:42 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 690 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad; PatrickHenry

Wrong. "IT" can neither deny God nor does "IT" deny God. The person who uses evolution as a tool to deny God can and does do that. Evolution is not a living entity that can deny anything, it only serves as a method to explain life and it's many intricacies. Evolution has no "tenets" it merely has statements of fact and references to evidence that support the theory. Therefore, whether you want to attack Evolution as an evil entity out to deny the existense of God or not, Evolution can not nor will not care.


696 posted on 09/28/2006 9:38:25 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 691 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
"Great testimony. It's only AFTER finding The Truth, can one see how they were deceived."

Yeah, well, so long as you don't "park your brain in neutral" after finding The Truth. God gave it to you for a reason. To USE it.

697 posted on 09/28/2006 9:42:30 PM PDT by Al Simmons (Finding God does not excuse you from using the analytical part of your brain... that He gave you....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 689 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons
No and yes. Unless you want to put God in a box and deny Him the power that you are too scared to understand...

Well jeepers, Al, how 'bout a little credit for trying to be brave? Most biologists probably are believers of some sort, and think in terms of an overall divine plan, through some sort of guided evolution, but that's not the issue here. Believing that there is a divine plan doesn't necessarily interfere with one's study of the particular processes of evolution, any more than it necessarily interferes with one's study of history.

Creationists, perhaps, don't have a problem with micro-evolution, it's speciation that they can't accept, mainly because of its implications for the emergence of the human species. To preserve the special position of humankind within the order of nature, they have to insist that every species is the product of a special act of creation. Otherwise, one would not be preserving the uniformity of natural laws.

Clearly, there are still plenty of people who hang on to the notion of six days of creation, but they are not where the debate is. The Creationists who are actively opposed to Darwinism now talk of Intelligent Design, regardless of the time-scale involved. They insist that there are no transitional forms and that the complex systems of particular species are irreducible, so that they could have no function in a half-complete state.

The problem is that even high school biology teachers don't generally know much about evolutionary mechanisms, so the slide from a notion of guided evolution into pure Intelligent Design is an easy transition.

The Creationists are not all fools, by any means, but even their best arguments are shoddy special pleading, for the most part.

Most biologists, paleontologists and physical anthropologists in the US, whether they are believers or not, have no particular problem with the religion-evolution relationship.

There are a few biologists, mostly in the UK it seems to me, who insist that evolution abolishes God. That seems to me to be as thickheaded a position as that of the most dyed-in-the-wool Creationists.

Unfortunately, the hardline "Science Disproves God" crowd do far more to strengthen support for Creationism than any argument made by the Creationists.

698 posted on 09/29/2006 3:44:51 AM PDT by steelyourfaith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
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.

That is not true - the author provides some evidence in the form of a quote from a famous evolutionist. You do understand you are trying to argue against somebodies qualitative option. While I don't agree with everything is the article, you do seem to be misrepresenting what it says. Try using quotes. You have yet to provide supporting evidence for your claims.

699 posted on 09/29/2006 6:17:59 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Gould is one person. Evolution is not Gould, and evolution makes no reference to a deity or lack thereof.

This statement makes no sense - you asked about the difference between two statements is which God is mentioned in one and not the other. Only people can express options - theories can't talk - be they Neo-Darwinist or not. It is obvious many Darwinists are very anti-religion.

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

I have no idea what you are rambling about but it sure does sound like you don't have any children - do you think childbirth is painless?

How are these not anti-religious?

Not sure what you are rambling about. Many evolutionists are very anti-religion.

700 posted on 09/29/2006 6:27:59 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720 ... 1,181-1,195 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