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 ... 801-850851-900901-950 ... 1,151-1,195 next last
To: js1138
Garbage. You can make any number of "Explanatory" statements, but they are not scientific unless they have implications that can be tested empirically. Any hypothesis or conjecture must suggest research. Field research, laboratory research, something concrete.

NONSENSE. Behe was not saying he believes in astrology or that it is scientific. He is simply saying that it has UNIFYING EXPLANATORY ATTRIBUTES, even if it is not scientific.

He is most definitely NOT endorsing astrology as VALID.

As for Field research, laboratory research, something concrete --- HEY WE'RE ALL FOR THAT. We'd still like to see random mutation and natural selection produce life.
851 posted on 09/30/2006 7:39:19 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 849 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
We'd still like to see random mutation and natural selection produce life.

Somehow I doubt we'd all like to see that.

852 posted on 09/30/2006 7:42:31 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 851 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
We'd still like to see random mutation and natural selection produce life.

If you are so ignorant as to confuse biogenesis with evolution, then you are beyond help.

If -- rather than "produce life" -- you mean "account for changes in populations over time," I think we can see that. As another freeper might say, take it up with Yockey.

The mechanisms of variation are there and can be observed, the mechanisms of selection are there and have been harnessed by breeders for centuries, the evidence in ERVs is there to demonstrate continuity, and the unity and continuity of cellular machinery is there.

853 posted on 09/30/2006 7:51:33 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 851 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

The political fracas is not over biogenesis -- testbooks don't claim we know how that happened. the fuss in Dover was over common descent -- something that Behe accepts.

I am mystified as to why anyone who doesn't accept common descent would want ID taught.


854 posted on 09/30/2006 7:54:38 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 852 | View Replies]

To: js1138
The mechanisms of variation are there and can be observed, the mechanisms of selection are there and have been harnessed by breeders for centuries, the evidence in ERVs is there to demonstrate continuity, and the unity and continuity of cellular machinery is there.

How is that evidence for RM+NS. The cellular machinery has been in placed ( question -- how does RM+NS produce this machinery in the first place ? ).

Then you use the words : "harnessed by breeders". Breeders ? wow, that's random indeed.
855 posted on 09/30/2006 7:54:59 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 853 | View Replies]

To: js1138
the fuss in Dover was over common descent -- something that Behe accepts.

The Dover board originally approved a statement to be made in the beginning of the class that says that there are competing theories to Darwinian Evolution and if students want to read more, there are materials they can avail of.

IT's THAT SIMPLE. BUT EVEN THIS ISN'T ACCEPTABLE.
856 posted on 09/30/2006 7:57:15 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 854 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I am mystified as to why anyone who doesn't accept common descent would want ID taught.

I can't think of a design more intelligent than one that would be self-maintaining and self-upgrading.

857 posted on 09/30/2006 8:00:01 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 854 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Variation and selection can be observed, even studied directly in the laboratory.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1634489/posts

And selection can be manipulated in agriculture and animal breeding -- activities that mimic the differential reproductive success of individuals in the absence of human intervention.

Nearly all the things we eat are the result of selective breeding. Most of our food crops cannot survive without cultivation.

But until very recently, there was no manipulation of genomes -- just selection by humans rather than "natural" contingencies.


858 posted on 09/30/2006 8:05:44 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 855 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
IT's THAT SIMPLE. BUT EVEN THIS ISN'T ACCEPTABLE.

You mean like Pandas

LOL.

Why not have Uri Geller teach alternative physics? Teach the controversy.

859 posted on 09/30/2006 8:08:34 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 856 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Michael Denton is no longer an anti-evolution activist.

I never considered him an activist. He was a SKEPTIC, that's all. Not an activist to the extent he is going on a warpath to stop evolution education. That is not his style.

Be that as it may, you refer me to a web page that mentions this :

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

Source: Nature's Destiny. From the impossibility of evolution to the inevitability of evolution: Anti-Evolutionst Michael Denton turns into an 'Evolutionist'. A review by Gert Korthof version 3.1b 23 May 2000

Quote from the book : >BR>
"It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies." (page xvii-xviii). ---------------------------------------

1) Note the DATE of the book --- 2000.

2) Denton was never a fan of creationists. That does not make him a non-skeptic of evolution.

3) He came out with a book in 2002 ( two years after the said work you refered to in that website ).

Here it is :

http://www.amazon.com/Natures-Destiny-Biology-Purpose-Universe/dp/0743237625/sr=8-1/qid=1159627851/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-3238153-5815259?ie=UTF8&s=books

TITLE : Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe

From Publishers Weekly

New England biologist Denton continues the assault on Darwinian science, especially the theories of evolution and natural selection, that he began in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Here, Denton takes a page out of the work of 19th-century natural theologians like William Paley and 19th-century anti-Darwinian scientists like Robert Chambers to contend that, far from being random and without direction, the laws of nature operate by design. Moreover, says Denton, the design of the laws of the universe inevitably lead to one conclusion: "The entire process of biological evolution from the origin of life to the emergence of man was somehow directed from the beginning." Denton marshals a dizzying array of scientific evidence to bolster his conclusions. First, he examines the evidence from physics and chemistry for the inevitability that the development of a universe like ours would have the evolution of life as its goal. He discusses gravity, the nuclear energy levels of certain atoms, water, light, carbon, uranium and more as elements whose existence is perfectly orchestrated to usher human life onto the universe's stage. Denton then discusses evolutionary biology, arguing that the biocentric nature of the universe undermines the Darwinian principles of contingent natural selection. Denton's arguments are weakened by their circular nature (he assumes design in nature and proceeds to make pieces fit his argument whether they do so easily or not), but his prose is engaging and his insights are accessible to readers who lack a deep scientific background. In the growing debate over Darwin's theories, Denton's voice remains one of the most notable and compelling.

Copyright 1998 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
860 posted on 09/30/2006 8:09:11 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 814 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons
I don't know if your statement applies to anyone around here, but you have just summed up my ex in a nutshell...

Congratulations on your escape!

861 posted on 09/30/2006 8:10:09 AM PDT by balrog666 (Ignorance is never better than knowledge. - Enrico Fermi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 840 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I can't think of a design more intelligent than one that would be self-maintaining and self-upgrading.

So after admitting that we don't know the history of biogenesis, and that molecular biologists are actively researching the problem, what else is there to say?

When science doesn't know something, it tries to find out.

862 posted on 09/30/2006 8:11:39 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 857 | View Replies]

To: js1138

What is Dumbski doing here?


863 posted on 09/30/2006 8:16:43 AM PDT by balrog666 (Ignorance is never better than knowledge. - Enrico Fermi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 859 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Michael Denton:

"It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."

SirLinksalot:

That does not make him a non-skeptic of evolution.

LOL.

Among other things it means he accepts abiogenesis as a natural phenomenon.

864 posted on 09/30/2006 8:17:24 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 860 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

His daily self-flagellation.


865 posted on 09/30/2006 8:18:21 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 863 | View Replies]

To: js1138
When science doesn't know something, it tries to find out.

Indeed. The question at hand seems to be whether curiousity is vice or virtue.

866 posted on 09/30/2006 8:22:21 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 862 | View Replies]

To: js1138
LOL, you quote his 2000 statement and then ignore the following statement he makes in his 2002 book :

"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."(p. 389)

I mentioned Denton because HE IS A SKEPTIC OF EVOLUTION. I did it in response to a question asked --- ARE ALL SKEPTICS OF EVOLUTION CHRISTIANS OR RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ? to which I said --- NOT NECESSARILY. I gave Denton and Berlinski as examples.

Denton's latest could almost be seen as a sequel to his first major critique of Darwinian Evolution, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis." In that book he devastates the Neo-Darwinian paradigm with evidence from various fields of biology, and concludes that life does appear to be designed. But then he does not follow the conclusion to a Designer, but remains a confirmed agnostic ( WHICH IS MY POINT --- NOT ALL SKEPTICS OF DARWINISM ARE THEISTS). Apparently to resolve this peculiar stance of his, he writes the second volume, "Nature's Destiny". In it, he dives into a full-fledged purpose-driven (teleological) view of life and the universe. Or more accurately, what he proposes is a thoroughly deterministic view of life, based on the inherent physical and chemical constants in the laws of nature. While I by no means subscribe to his evolutionary conclusions regarding the evidence he propounds, I found the evidence and research he presented pointing to design to be fascinating.

What I find ironic is that here we have evidence - that is, an increasingly clear view of the fundamental essences of cellular structure and function - we have almost universal acknowledgement among leading biologists that these things ‘appear’ designed - and yet Darwinists cling to stochasticism!

Why do so many refuse to let go of materialist assumptions when the simplest explanation is design?

It is as if nature shouts “Planned!” from the cosmos down to the micros - yet so many prominent minds refuse to even entertain the idea - why is that?

I see no other explanation than a pre-existing commitment to a philosophical view, one adherants hold is superior to the metaphysical superstitions of the ignorant masses while refusing to admit its own metaphysical nature!
867 posted on 09/30/2006 8:39:54 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 864 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

OMG, you have got to be kidding me.

Ever heard of Occam's razor?


868 posted on 09/30/2006 8:41:38 AM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 838 | View Replies]

To: mugs99

Of course. I have no need or intention of proving it.

I really don't care what anyone else believes or thinks, unlike some creationists who wish to have physical proof of God "once and for all."


869 posted on 09/30/2006 8:44:28 AM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 774 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog

"Is English your second language?" is an attack.

Don't bother trying to tell me it isn't.


870 posted on 09/30/2006 8:46:46 AM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 782 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Because I don't accept other men's descriptions of God. How hard is that to understand?


871 posted on 09/30/2006 8:48:15 AM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 786 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."

So what's your point? That's just a fancy statement of the anthropic principle, something dreamed up by physicists.

I don't resist religious thoughts unless they contradict the findings of science, or -- much worse -- get used by the anti-science crowd to oppose research.

872 posted on 09/30/2006 9:16:41 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 867 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Very interesting; however Darwinian evolution requires an
evolutionary sequence within one species.


873 posted on 09/30/2006 9:17:06 AM PDT by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 734 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
What I find ironic is that here we have evidence - that is, an increasingly clear view of the fundamental essences of cellular structure and function - we have almost universal acknowledgement among leading biologists that these things ‘appear’ designed - and yet Darwinists cling to stochasticism!

The origin of diversity in life is pretty much settled, and it is stochastic. The constraint being that stochastic variations have to survive and reproduce.

The question of original life cannot be settled by sitting on your ass and thinking about it. Its a matter for research.

I ask you if quantum theory could have been invented by people thinking about first principles, or could have been decided without the two slit experiment.

874 posted on 09/30/2006 9:22:07 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 867 | View Replies]

To: upcountryhorseman

What does that mean. Evolution assumes that every offspring is of the same species as its parents, if that's what you mean.

That particular question was settled by 1940.


875 posted on 09/30/2006 9:24:10 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 873 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Behe was not saying he believes in astrology or that it is scientific.

Behe specificially stated that astrology would qualify as a "scientific theory" based upon his definition of the term. I have seen no one suggest that he accepts astrology, but his own words suggest that he believes it scientific.
876 posted on 09/30/2006 9:27:08 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 851 | View Replies]

To: upcountryhorseman

AI have to amend my statement. Plants occasionally speciate by polyploidy, doubling their chromosomes in one generation.

Nearly everything we eat is a result of a polyploidy event within human history.

Because chromosome doubling is so common in plants, you don't have such a severe problem of mutant individuals finding mates.

Except, ironically, in the plants we cultivate for food. They can't mate successfully without human intervention.


877 posted on 09/30/2006 9:29:25 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 873 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
IT's THAT SIMPLE. BUT EVEN THIS ISN'T ACCEPTABLE.

That is because the statement that there exist "competing theories to Darwinian evolution" is a lie.
878 posted on 09/30/2006 9:29:41 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 856 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
but his own words suggest that he believes it scientific.

It explains everything, and that's what's important.

Research is hard, Barbie. Let's go shopping.

879 posted on 09/30/2006 9:38:50 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 876 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American

Naturalism.


880 posted on 09/30/2006 9:49:58 AM PDT by Boiler Plate (Mom always said why be difficult, when with just a little more effort you can be impossible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 804 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
Ever heard of Occam's razor?

Nope. And by the way, I never said the pyramids were built by aliens. I just said prove that they weren't. I belive that is a logical request.

881 posted on 09/30/2006 10:11:42 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 868 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

Asking someone to prove a negative is the opposite of logical.


882 posted on 09/30/2006 10:50:33 AM PDT by stands2reason (The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 881 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason; balrog666
"Ever heard of Occam's razor?"

Naah...that won't work with him...Occam was a Muslim, so he can't have ANY relevance to a Christian (read: Evangelical/Born-Again) world-view...just like anything that Dr. Laura says on the radio doesn't count, because, see, "she's not a Christian"...oh and any of your parents who "didn't accept Christ BURN IN HELL!!"...

*SLAP*

Oh! Sorry guys!! I was channeling my EX for a moment!!

883 posted on 09/30/2006 12:39:27 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 868 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

Occam's razor is a principle elucidated by the scientist of the same name, way back about 1000 years ago. Summed up it states that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one.


884 posted on 09/30/2006 12:41:18 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 881 | View Replies]

To: js1138
The origin of diversity in life is pretty much settled, and it is stochastic.

It certainly is.

885 posted on 09/30/2006 12:45:44 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 874 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

You do good work. Kind of red in tooth and claw, but it cleans up well.


886 posted on 09/30/2006 12:49:28 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 885 | View Replies]

To: js1138

I too play at dice.


887 posted on 09/30/2006 12:51:34 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 886 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Again, you misrepresent me...It is interesting to watch you continue to misrepresent my position...All you can do is continue to misrepresent my (and Hoyle's) position...

Here's your position, in your own words.

GourmetDan: I believe that God created the universe and life ~ 6,000 yrs ago and that the universe is geocentric.

888 posted on 09/30/2006 1:48:40 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 805 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
What I find ironic is that here we have evidence - that is, an increasingly clear view of the fundamental essences of cellular structure and function - we have almost universal acknowledgement among leading biologists that these things ‘appear’ designed - and yet Darwinists cling to stochasticism!

"Universal" in this context meaning "a teeny, tiny percentage."

889 posted on 09/30/2006 1:51:10 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 867 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
But I understand why. You have been taught *what* to think, not *how* to think.

I love that. The ultimate egotism when there is no argument or facts.

890 posted on 09/30/2006 1:53:08 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 805 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
...these things ‘appear’ designed ...

Oh wow, look at the pretty designs. Now can we go shopping?

891 posted on 09/30/2006 2:01:45 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 889 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Knowing 'how' to think is much more important than getting the right answer.

GD thinks he has stumbled onto some profound insight into life, the universe and everything, because coordinate systems can be remapped.


892 posted on 09/30/2006 2:04:55 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 890 | View Replies]

To: js1138; GourmetDan
Knowing 'how' to think is much more important than getting the right answer.

Hmmm - lets think and try to come up with a group that emphasizes "thinking" over "analysis and facts." Hmmm.

GD thinks he has stumbled onto some profound insight into life, the universe and everything, because coordinate systems can be remapped. Posting HTML

I think I thought the same thing when I was a junior in High School also.

(CP Dan)

893 posted on 09/30/2006 2:09:18 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 892 | View Replies]

To: js1138

GD thinks he has stumbled onto some profound insight into life, the universe and everything, because coordinate systems can be remapped.

I assert the tip of my right thumb is the center of the universe.

894 posted on 09/30/2006 2:25:08 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 892 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
Of course. I have no need or intention of proving it
Nor does any Deist. A need to prove is born of doubt.
.
895 posted on 09/30/2006 3:32:13 PM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 869 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

And I demand that I may or may not be Broomfondle!


896 posted on 09/30/2006 4:21:32 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 894 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Thanks for that. I've read it several times now and it makes sense to me.


897 posted on 09/30/2006 5:11:50 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 815 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

Again, you misrepresent me.

As Sir Fred Hoyle said,

"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."

Sir Fred Hoyle, Astronomy and Cosmology, 1975, p. 416, (Quoted in Spring, 02 BA, p.64.)

What is it about 'no physical significance' that you don't understand?


898 posted on 09/30/2006 6:07:26 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 807 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

Yeah, so what is it about 'no physical significance' that you don't understand?

"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."

Sir Fred Hoyle, Astronomy and Cosmology, 1975, p. 416, (Quoted in Spring, 02 BA, p.64.)


899 posted on 09/30/2006 6:08:42 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 888 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Refresh me on what your argument and facts were?


900 posted on 09/30/2006 6:09:09 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 890 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 801-850851-900901-950 ... 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