More scientists express doubts on Darwin

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | June 22, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

[GourmetDan]

Somebody doesn't know the difference between 'evidence' and 'interpretations of evidence'.

[GourmetDan]

Which shows how some people will compromise with just about anything to avoid being thought a fool by men.

[js1138]

And we all knew that if he doesn't believe in Darwinism, he isn't a *real* scientist, doesn't really understand evolution, is damaged goods, etc etc etc...

I'd be willing to bet that not one in a hundred of these signers could provide, in their own words, a coherent three sentence outline of evolution.

I bet you can't either.

I've been participating in these threads for nearly five years and have not seen an evolution critic post an acceptable description of how evolution works.

[stands2reason]

He's been a Christian since 1976 and he's still an evolutionist.

Try again.

[Stultis]

And we all knew that if he doesn't believe in Darwinism, he isn't a *real* scientist

No. Not at all. The problem is that, his standing as a scientist completely aside, he doesn't know what "Darwinism" actually is. He thinks (or pretends to think) that natural selection is the ONLY mechanism that evolutionists accept or consider. That's just plain silly. Then he hypes it all up like he was challenge some GREAT, IMPOSING DOGMA in even suggesting otherwise. Like I say, DRAMA QUEEN.

[JTHomes]

That must prove once and for all the true genesis of life - FSM.

[stands2reason]

Who invented logic, God or Satan?

[Fester Chugabrew]

For any other explanation to be considered, it must first pass scientific rigor.

A philosphy of history that posits millions of years of unobserved, unrecorded, untestable history does not pass scientific rigour in the first place. Yet you dare demand "explanations" of those who have multiple, current examples of intelligent design applied in such a manner as to produce organized matter that performs specific functions?

[orionblamblam]

A reasonable position which I do not argue with.

[GourmetDan]

Yeah, nobody actually knows what Darwinism is. It is all things to all believers and no unbeliever can understand it.

Been down that road a hundred times.

[stands2reason]

BS. How are evos inhibiting ID research?

Can you explain that or should I expect the usual creationist answer?

[spunkets]

" I'm descended from Europeans. Why are there still Europeans?"

probably, because their descendants rescued their butts a few times.

[GourmetDan]

I've been participating in discussions of evolution for longer than that and I've never seen an evolutionist give a coherent explanation of evolution that wasn't merely 'defined truth'.

Any other definition was easily demonstrated to be metaphysical.

[GourmetDan]

I've been participating in discussions of evolution for longer than that and I've never seen an evolutionist give a coherent explanation of evolution that wasn't merely 'defined truth'.

Any other definition was easily demonstrated to be metaphysical.

[stands2reason]

Provide proof that he's YEC.

[atlaw]

So is it fair to say that you, GourmetDan, don't know anything at all about either the theory of evolution or the evidence supporting the theory?

[thomaswest]

I think the problem with evolution is not so much what is taught in schools, but the fact that no other explanation is permitted to even be considered.

Holcaust-deniers and evolution-deniers sing from the same hymnal on this one.

"...no other explanation...considered." Well, should we permit teaching the theory of demon possession in medical school as an equal to pneumococcal infection in diagnosing pneumonia? Should we teach the geocentric theory as an 'other explanation' to the heliocentric theory?

Your suggestion would open the door to having everyone's pet theories brought into the schools. Personally, I think gravity--which is supported by social and scientific elites-- has no transitional forms, and it is actually invisible pixies that make things fall down. There is no evidence whatsoever against the Pixie Theory!

[cccp_hater]

"I take anything science says with a grain of salt because science does not have a very good track record of being correct."

I just love the irony of someone using a computer (a device completely created through science) complaining that science is rarely correct.

[Coyoteman]

the evidence...

Evidence? Sure there is evidence. Here's some more!

---

Herto skulls (Homo sapiens idaltu)

Some new fossils from Herto in Ethiopia, are the oldest known modern human fossils, at 160,000 yrs. The discoverers have assigned them to a new subspecies, Homo sapiens idaltu, and say that they are anatomically and chronologically intermediate between older archaic humans and more recent fully modern humans. Their age and anatomy is cited as strong evidence for the emergence of modern humans from Africa, and against the multiregional theory which argues that modern humans evolved in many places around the world.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/herto.html

[mgstarr]

Wonder where most of these people would have stood during the trial of Galileo in 1633. Actually I do know but doubt they can truly see the parallels.