Why Darwinism Is Doomed

WorldNetDaily ^ | 09/27/2006 | Jonathan Wells

[Last Visible Dog]

Personal attack alert. Is that all you have?

It was not a personal attack because it was not directed at any person. But thanks for playing.

[mugs99]

He didn't believe in a designer. He was agnostic. He didn't believe in a God

The word "agnostic" was created by Thomas Henry Huxley.
According to Huxley, "agnostic" means that knowledge of the cause and origin of existence is not only an uncertainty, but an impossibility, whether you’re considering that the origin may be God, science, or something else entirely.
If he didn't believe in God he would be an Atheist, not an agnostic.

Then you are not a Deist. Deists are not Agnostic about the existence of God, by definition Deists believe in a God
LOL!
You are going to tell me that I'm not a Deist?
Shall I tell you that you are not a Christian?
Agnostic refers to knowledge, not faith.
Deists recognize that God's nature can't be comprehended by human knowledge.

"I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."
Thanks for proving my point...He was talking about knowledge, not faith.

"I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance."... Charles Darwin, the inventor of Intelligent Design.
.

[finnman69]

Explain it to me now, where did say the 70 million year old T-rex come from?

[Last Visible Dog]

I'm not barking up any tree. Put my statement back in context.

What are you talking about? If you think the context is wrong - explain the context. I did not take anything out of context.

[Last Visible Dog]

So he belongs to a cult. That shouldn't be a reflection on his mental faculties at all! (/sarc)

I beleive that statement is an example of bigtory. Based on his religion you pasted judgement on his scientific work. What next? The color of his skin?

[Virginia-American]

Actually, as a 'recovering born-again Christian', I know more about it than you'd think. I've personally ,et some of the biggest names in born-again Christianity, and I am sad to say that for every Billy Graham there are 5 or 6 hucksters, making it up as they go along.

I'll never forget Creflo Dollar asking people to come up and leave $$$$ at the feet of the preacher whose church he was guest-speaking at, or Kenneth Copeland telling the story of how God told him to buy a million-dollar airplane and then how his congregation made it happen.

Cherchez l'argent

[DeweyCA]

This stupid guy with only a PhD in Biology from Berkeley. Good grief, we know that no REAL scientist has any doubts about evolution!!

/sarc

[stands2reason]

Exactly. Which is why the origin of life is not a part of ToE.

[stands2reason]

We are talking about species -- groups -- not individuals.

Species that do not reproduce but CAN are lions and tigers. Without our assistance, they'd never reproduce. That's why they are different species.

[stands2reason]

It was not a personal attack because it was not directed at any person.

It was not a plural, it was specific. Who was the remark in reference to?

[Stultis]

File pic of Jonathan Wells (left):

[Cinnamon Girl]

Thank you. The mudskipper appears to be no more a "missing link" than this supposed missing link: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/04/05/fossil-fish-20060405.html

[stands2reason]

I beleive that statement is an example of bigtory.

It's called discrimination based on mental faculties. Would you feel comfortable having surgery if your anesthesiologist started talking about the aliens who are stealing his thoughts?

What next? The color of his skin?

Don't be ridiculous.

[VadeRetro]

Moonie Wells doing a wild bit of naysaying on a few unrelated news items and titling it "Why Darwinism is Doomed?" Papa Sun Myung must be smiling.

[Last Visible Dog]

Species that do not reproduce but CAN are lions and tigers. Without our assistance, they'd never reproduce. That's why they are different species.

So you are saying if two groups of animals CAN reproduce but don't are considered different species - OK - what are groups that CAN'T reproduce called?

Like I said earlier - can you provide any supporting evidence for your claims?

[My2Cents]

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.

Glad he makes this distinction...one than many Darwinists on FR refuse to make.

[My2Cents]

one which is perfectly compatible with Christianity.

Define "Christianity."

[LiteKeeper]

The "70 million year" figure is highly debatable, and, contrary to popular belief, highly subjective. There are huge disagreements as to the validity of the "accepted" ages....or what those ages actually are.