Posted on 08/16/2005 11:23:20 AM PDT by woodb01
If we are as dumb as you say, why are we beating the tar out of evolution? Your side is in retreat as Rush has observed:
| Now, the REAL million dollar question: what took Harvard so long to get to this point? And if the Discovery Inst. hadn't been doing the work it has been doing, does anyone seriously believe that Harvard would spend money on this? Not a chance. This announcement by Harvard is nothing less than a giant white flag raised above a key fortress of 'intelligent people'. And it is a FLAT OUT VICTORY for the folks who have been promoting ID. |
You voluntarily relegate yourself to an inferior intellectual category.
Yes I guess you could say that if the cambrian represents a problem for evolution, then the cambrian completely obliterates creationism.
You haven't heard how Ashley Montagu went after Charleton Coon for his "racism." The real question is what our anthropology will say about the varieties of human cultures and the people who have developed them. Hitler discredited a whole line of conventional wisdom by applying an extreme version of eugenics.
That isn't evolution you
Are you posting to me? I don't recognise the quote you attribute to me.
I am not a reader of Ashley Montagu. I have seen racism spring up from every political direction. I associate racism with individuals, not with ideologies.
Matter of fact, as a conservative, I always hold individuals rather than groups resopnsible.
Without requoting the whole diatribe, I love how wonderfully "tolerant" and "scientific" so many evolutionary secular fundamentalists are... It's so refreshing to hear the same old personal attacks. Although it's entirely understandable when you try to defend the indefensible...
Evolution is a complete SCIENCE FRAUD! It is a zealous fundamentalist religious belief masking as science. At least I give the Church of Scientology CREDIT for acknowledging that theirs is entirely a religion, at least they are honest about it and do not lie about it and engage in ad hominem personal attacks to distract from the FACT that evolution is an unsupportable SCIENCE FRAUD!
Evolution requires more blind faith to believe that rocks, water, and a few base chemicals (which no one can even prove existed) are the source of all life. And now evolutionists, realizing that their entire hoax is being exposed as a fraud scream "no fair, you can't say that the origins of life have anything to do with evolution..."
Understandably evolutionists recoil at this because when you evaluate the WHOLE PROCESS, including the INPUTS into that process, evolution collapses. The only thing left is complete intellectual dishonesty, zealous secular fundamentalism, and a house of cards built on fantastical fairy tale lies.
Evolution is the opiate for the atheists, and it is a SCIENCE FRAUD! Science is not damaged by evolution being challenged as the FRAUD that it is, science is damaged by NOT challenging evolution as the FRAUD that it is!
THINK man, evolutionary claims require so many leaps of blind faith that those who ACKNOWLEDGE religious beliefs are easier to accept, at least they are honest that theirs is based on faith.
You lied when you said that the Harvard scientists were claiming their study was a support for evolution.
How can complex biochemical organization be irrelevent, when the "fact" of evolution is a mere inference and not an observable event? Wouldn't evidence contrary to that inference be relevent? It is certainly is in any court of law I've practiced in. Really, you've just given a splendid exmaple of the kind of "faith" no intellectually honest person can hold.
But more to your argument about the Cambrian record--it too rests on a large assumption. I'll let you figure out what it is.
You are claiming that because we don't know the details of how evolution works, therefore evolution isn't science.
That something occured can be worked out independantly from knowing how it happened.
That evolution has occured on Earth is beyond doubt given the evidence. How it occured is only starting to be looked into. But then we are only starting to look into how an embryo changes into an adult. It simply is not a case that we understand nature well and cannot see how evolution is possible. It is a case of not understanding nature well and lots of research still left to be done to uncover the details of evolution.
"Without requoting the whole diatribe..."
Or answering why you lied about what the Harvard scientists said either
Or explaining why you didn't inform everybody that this *article* (not the AP one, but the one that was the basis for this thread) was written by YOU. Not very honest, though not surprising.
"I love how wonderfully "tolerant" and "scientific" so many evolutionary secular fundamentalists are... It's so refreshing to hear the same old personal attacks. Although it's entirely understandable when you try to defend the indefensible..."
And your rambling *article* was a model of restraint and free from personal attack and invective? RIIiiiggghhht!!
Keep trying to convince yourself that :)
The National SOCIALISTS determined that Jews, the sick, the elderly, the disabled, etc., weren't as "valuable" as the rest of society and exercised their "natural selection" to exterminate them.
Lots of facts in science are not observable events. Just about all of geology is based on working out facts about the past that we cannot recreate. It is a fact that Hawaii formed a few million years ago, even though noone witnessed it. Same with astronomy. It is a fact that Pluto orbits the sun, yet noone has witnessed a full orbit. It is a fact that the craters on the moon were caused by meteors, yet noone observed them. It is a fact that stars form, burn and die in a certain way, yet noone has observed one do so. It is an inference from current states of stars and models.
Wouldn't evidence contrary to that inference be relevent?
Yes it would. But what evidence contrary to the inference would you be suggesting? Arguments such as "the eye seems to complex" are not contrary evidence. They are pointing out gaps in scientific knowledge, not scientific knowledge of gaps in evolution. Fact is we don't really know how the human eye develops in the embryo yet so it really isn't suprising that we wouldn't understand how such development itself could evolve. This is due to a lack of current knowledge and technology. Only when such knowledge and technology becomes better will answering the question "how did the eye evolve" become really possible.
But more to your argument about the Cambrian record--it too rests on a large assumption. I'll let you figure out what it is.
The cambrian strata in the grand canyon are labelled. If you found a mammal fossil noone would be able to deny it.
The big bang? Who cares about the big bang? I want to know who made the big bong.
sorry, a momentary lapse into history. I am out of these threads, and it is nice to drift back in and see that nothing has changed.
Greetings to all. I am busy ranting about immigration threads when I can post.
Later, all.
If natural selection is a mechanism that can be observed in nature, then it must have a physical effect upon nature, and in particular the organisms which constitute nature.
What event, or events, does natural selection explain, that isn't already explained by mutation, drift, recombination, and heredity.
If you can't demonstrate this, then natural selection does not belong in a scientific theory.
Yes. No one disagrees with species differentiation from a common ancestor. We just say that there are a lot fewer 'common ancestors' than evolutionists do, and they were created with the genetic potential for adaptation.
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.