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 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 1,181-1,195 next last
To: sasafras
Fish did not magically turn into mammals. That sounds like some kind of creationist fantasy.
Vertebrates evolved into tetrapods and then amniotes which spawned mammals. there is tons of evidence to support this.
http://amnh.org/exhibitions/hall_tour/spectrum/flash/
161
posted on
09/27/2006 12:51:31 PM PDT
by
finnman69
(cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
To: SirLinksalot
Fashions change. Dogmas pass. I remember when science was telling us with utmost confidence that tomatoes are bad for one's health. Communism is the ultimate destiny of the human society. What is it that you wanted to do to your mother Oedepus? Science: 10% of population is homersexual. Science: Margaret Mead is the Man! Science: the Turin Shroud is from the XIV century. No, wait: science: the Turin Shroud is from the I century. Science knows...
162
posted on
09/27/2006 12:52:56 PM PDT
by
Revolting cat!
("In the end, nothing explains anything!")
To: Revolting cat!
10% of population is homersexual
163
posted on
09/27/2006 12:55:52 PM PDT
by
js1138
(The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
To: taxesareforever
164
posted on
09/27/2006 12:57:14 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
To: js1138
Fact that he has his head up the Reverand Moon's moonpie is a clue. Do you actually believe a personal attack is an intellectual retort?
To: razzle
You have a problem with science?
166
posted on
09/27/2006 12:59:11 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
Comment #167 Removed by Moderator
To: Buck W.
I agree with you that Gould was absolutely wrong.
168
posted on
09/27/2006 1:03:47 PM PDT
by
Recovering_Democrat
(I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of "dependence on government"!)
To: tacticalogic
It is not my claim.
I apparently misread the intent of your statement. My apologies.
169
posted on
09/27/2006 1:05:39 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Last Visible Dog
Do you actually believe a personal attack is an intellectual retort?
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.
Is this the usual and customary way to start a scholarly Discussion of a science topic?
170
posted on
09/27/2006 1:08:19 PM PDT
by
js1138
(The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
To: muawiyah
got mules and jennies Mentioning mules reminds me of the Neo-Darwinist beleif that two similar things not being able to reproduce is the only and solid proof of specizations. Interesting. So does that mean a horse and a donkey are the same species since they can reproduce? The evo logic seems flimsy.
I believe it is hinnies - jennies are female donkeys
To: TOWER
172
posted on
09/27/2006 1:08:53 PM PDT
by
Boxen
To: stands2reason
What "lie" is exposed?Psst, psst. evolution.
To: drangundsturm
People who believe in creation are against abortion in far higher numbers than people who believe in evolution. Maybe, but that doesn't mean that evos are having all the abortions.
174
posted on
09/27/2006 1:16:11 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
To: Al Simmons
Most of them end up as bitter atheists.
175
posted on
09/27/2006 1:16:41 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
To: js1138
Is this the usual and customary way to start a scholarly Discussion of a science topic? What do you claim is invalid or "un-shcolarly" about the statement and was it scholarly for you to retort with ONLY a person attack (with a helping of mind-reading)
Are you big on the "monkey see, monkey do" philosophy of life?
To: SirLinksalot
SHUT UP, EVERYONE! THE MISSING LINK HAS BEEN FOUND! DARWIN HAS BEEN VINDICATED!!!
Or maybe a mudskipper was always a mudskipper?....
177
posted on
09/27/2006 1:18:11 PM PDT
by
Cinnamon Girl
(OMGIIHIHOIIC ping list)
To: Frwy
Accepting reality shouldn't damn you.
178
posted on
09/27/2006 1:18:48 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
To: muawiyah
... "kind" simply wasn't the sort of thing we've come to expect out of our modern word "species". Agreed. Of course, I don't know of anyone who believes that Straw Man.
At the same time, I have to disagree with your argument that "kind" merely refers to "animal" or "plant" (large categories). Scripture is clear (as I mentioned earlier) that there were a variety of "kinds" of "animals," for example....
179
posted on
09/27/2006 1:18:57 PM PDT
by
Theo
(Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
To: tacticalogic
ALWAYS ALWAYS include sarcasm tags when dealing with this issue.
You are representing conservatism to lurkers.
180
posted on
09/27/2006 1:20:47 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 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