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 ... 581-600, 601-620, 621-640 ... 1,181-1,195 next last
To: stultorum
Sorry stultorm, but you have been hoodwinked. The Darwin recant is a well documented hoax.
601
posted on
09/28/2006 5:56:11 PM PDT
by
TOWER
To: stultorum
Now that I look, I see you are a n00b.
Your best bet is to remain silent so you don't make a fool out of yourself again. Read and ask questions. Learn.
Us Elders will watch over you if you are properly respectful.
602
posted on
09/28/2006 5:57:00 PM PDT
by
freedumb2003
("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
To: TOWER
It wasn't so much his repeating of the myth.
It was his response in 593 when I brought him up on it.
Arrogance doesn't help someone in this situation.
603
posted on
09/28/2006 5:58:26 PM PDT
by
freedumb2003
("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
To: freedumb2003
Well that explains a lot. It also means he is probably sober ;)
No doubt. One must be sober to hope to persuade anyone of such a claim. However, one might also hope that the audience wasn't entirely sober if one truly intended to profit, in any way, from such a claim.
604
posted on
09/28/2006 6:05:08 PM PDT
by
ml1954
(ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
To: SirLinksalot
Darwinism was doomed from it's conception.
Unfortunately it will have deceived many before it returns to the ash-heap of lies it came from.
605
posted on
09/28/2006 6:06:07 PM PDT
by
Jorge
To: freedumb2003
There is no other conclusion. You don't get to say "well, 1+1=3 and that is my opinion."
The theory ( emphasis ) of evolution is not the same as 1 + 1 =2. That is why REASONABLE PEOPLE DISPUTE IT. Wrong analogy.
You can have an opinion, but you need to defend it if it deals with science.
Agree. That is why both sides -- IDers and Evos need to present the evidence.
We have so-called conservatives who fight FOR willful ignorance and embrace and accelerate the dumbing down of America.
And you are assuming that these are ID supporters ? Our public schools have been saturated with nothing but EVOLUTION without any other ideas presented ( inspite of all the problems with it) for over 40 years. Of course our public schools have been very bad. What's your point ?
If "moonbat wing" doesn't fit scientists who should know better, then who can the tag be applied to?
The tag should only be applied to scientist who do not know better. Since you have not proven this to be the case with those who doubt Random mutation plus natural selection's ability to create the complexity of life, it doesn't apply here.
To: stultorum
Darwin, himself, in the end, didn't believe his own theory and turned to God. As somebody else has pointed out, that's a myth. The Answers in Genesis website has an article on it: Did Darwin Recant?
From the end of the article:
It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people.
607
posted on
09/28/2006 6:11:37 PM PDT
by
scripter
("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
To: Jorge
I am curious. Do you believe that asserting that the theory of evolution is "doomed" actually demonstrates that the theory is doomed? If so, then you should be aware that you are mistaken. Merely saying that the theory of evolution is "doomed" does not actually demonstrate that the theory is, in fact, doomed.
608
posted on
09/28/2006 6:12:44 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: ml1954
However, one might also hope that the audience wasn't entirely sober if one truly intended to profit, in any way, from such a claim. Reminds me of you-know-who, the eternal psychobabble sophomore (whom I won't name since I don't want to ping).
609
posted on
09/28/2006 6:13:18 PM PDT
by
freedumb2003
("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
To: SirLinksalot
That is why both sides -- IDers and Evos need to present the evidence.
Evidence for evolution has been presented. That you dismiss the evidence without examining it is not the same as it never having been presented at all.
610
posted on
09/28/2006 6:14:11 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: freedumb2003
(Another thread, another ping. I'm not trying to pick on you.)
Here's an interesting statement on evolution from a real mathematician: Yockey. Source. (boldface mine)
DATE: 13 Nov 2000
From: Hubert P. Yockey
|
Subject: Your Review of Information Theory and Molecular Biology Dear Gert: Thank for your review of my book Information Theory and Molecular Biology. This book is now out of print but I am working on the second edition. You seem puzzled by my quotations of the Bible. Please note that I also quote Robert Frost, Homer's Iliad, the Mikado, Charles Darwin, Machiavelli''s The Prince, Plato, The Rubaiyat and other sources. When something was said 2000 years ago, it is plagiarism to say it again without quotation. It is a viscous circle indeed! (*) But that is what we find by experiment. We are the product of nature not its judge. As Hamlet said to his friend: "There are many things, Horatio, between Heaven and Earth unknown in your philosophy." See Gregory Chaitin's books "The Limits of Mathematics",1998 and "The Unknowable",1999 both Springer-Verlag. See also my comments on unknowability in Epilogue. We will never know what caused the Big Bang and we will never know what caused life. By the way, I am indeed an anti-creationist becaue I believe that the origin of life is, like the Big Bang, a part of nature but is unknowable to man. Taken all in all, especially for those who finished reading the review, it is very favorable. Here is a list of my recent publications. If you send me your postal address I shall send you the Computers & Chemistry paper. That will explain why the recent data on the genomes of human and other organisms provide a mathematical proof of "Darwinism" beyond a reasonable doubt. (**) I suggest you read the paper in Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. Perhaps you would then like to read some of Walther Löb's papers. Stanley Miller was not the first to find amino acids in the silent electrical discharge. Yours very sincerely, Hubert P. Yockey |
611
posted on
09/28/2006 6:15:25 PM PDT
by
js1138
(The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
To: Dimensio
Evidence for evolution has been presented. That you dismiss the evidence without examining it is not the same as it never having been presented at all.
Whatever evidence there is has been examined by many and found wanting. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE DOUBT BY MANY SCIENTISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
To: SirLinksalot
"Agree. That is why both sides -- IDers and Evos need to present the evidence."
Well, science museums and libraries are overflowing with evidence; when is the 'other side' going to produce any?
613
posted on
09/28/2006 6:16:11 PM PDT
by
Al Simmons
(Science and Religion are unrelated disciplines and are not philosophically contradictory.)
To: Dimensio
I am curious. Do you believe that asserting that the theory of evolution is "doomed" actually demonstrates that the theory is doomed? If so, then you should be aware that you are mistaken. Merely saying that the theory of evolution is "doomed" does not actually demonstrate that the theory is, in fact, doomed. Its kind of like an incantation, or imitative magic. If you say it often enough perhaps it will come to pass.
614
posted on
09/28/2006 6:16:55 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: Al Simmons
Well, science museums and libraries are overflowing with evidence; when is the 'other side' going to produce any?
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE is the issue. Both sides look at the evidence and come up with different conclusions.
To: SirLinksalot
Whatever evidence there is has been examined by many and found wanting.
What reasonable rebuttals have been presented to the conclusions drawn from ERV insertions across primate species found to match previously established lines of descent?
616
posted on
09/28/2006 6:19:24 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: SirLinksalot
"THE INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE is the issue. Both sides look at the evidence and come up with different conclusions."
OK, let me see if I understand:
a. Scientists gather the evidence;
b. Non-scientists then get to interpret it and dismiss the scientists' explanation;
Can someone help me out here? Something seems to be wrong with this analysis but I can't quite put my finger on it......
617
posted on
09/28/2006 6:22:20 PM PDT
by
Al Simmons
(Science and Religion are unrelated disciplines and are not philosophically contradictory.)
To: SirLinksalot
The theory ( emphasis ) of evolution is not the same as 1 + 1 =2. That is why REASONABLE PEOPLE DISPUTE IT. Wrong analogy. Willfully ignorant (but perhaps otherwise reasonable) people dispute it because it doesn't jive with their Holy Book or they don't understand it.
Agree. That is why both sides -- IDers and Evos need to present the evidence.
TToE has literally millions of peices of evidence. If there is a part you don't understand, I can walk you through it. CR/IDers have -- faith (not evidence by any standard).
And you are assuming that these are ID supporters ? Our public schools have been saturated with nothing but EVOLUTION without any other ideas presented ( inspite of all the problems with it) for over 40 years. Of course our public schools have been very bad. What's your point ?
As I keep pointing out there are NO credible scientific alternatives to TToE (so much for the "problems with it"). Public School may be teaching it but it is constantly under attack from the Theocrats who want to put a State-sanctioned Religion in under the guise of an "alternative."
The very fact we have to have these discussions proves that willful ignorance is stronger that the scientific method.
The tag should only be applied to scientist who do not know better. Since you have not proven this to be the case with those who doubt Random mutation plus natural selection's ability to create the complexity of life, it doesn't apply here.
It is, of course, more comlplex than that, but a small number of so-called "scientists" (how many of them are in the Life Sciences by the way?) who should understand why TToE is currently the only explanation for the evidence are certainly so far out on the fringe that the tag applies.
618
posted on
09/28/2006 6:22:38 PM PDT
by
freedumb2003
("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
To: SirLinksalot
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE is the issue. Both sides look at the evidence and come up with different conclusions. OK lets hear yours. This should be a dandy.
619
posted on
09/28/2006 6:23:26 PM PDT
by
freedumb2003
("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
To: Dimensio
What reasonable rebuttals have been presented to the conclusions drawn from ERV insertions across primate species found to match previously established lines of descent?
Written rebuttals have been presented in many sites.
Here are two :
www.discovery.org
www.arn.org
Books have been written.
Debates have been organized in colleges, universities, institutions and churches.
By all means, let's examine them and see which one best fits the evidence.
Unfortunately for you, the majority of Americans seem to remain unconvinced with Darwinism.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600, 601-620, 621-640 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson