Posted on 07/07/2007 2:31:35 AM PDT by balch3
Mr Lundbergh is absolutely accurate in his critique of the false pseudo-scientific religion of Darwinism.
The hysterical/irrational reaction of its adherents is similar in many ways to the reaction to Pope Benedict's brilliant Regensburg lecture.
Such people do not like to have their certainties questioned.
For anyone with an open mind, neither historical evidence nor scientific experimentation lend any credibility to this "theory". It remains just that, a preposterous theory, not a matter of fact. It's very much a case of ideology masquerading as science, a crutch for closed minds, an ideology for the deluded.
There's nothing concrete or tangible about it. The contrast with the contribution of its adherents' great ideological enemy (Roman Catholicism) could not be greater. There you have tangible evidence of its reality. For example you can visit the great universities, Oxford, Cambridge, Bologna etc. You can see the Sistine Chapel. You can expand your mind by absorbing the genius of Thomas Aquinas and so on, and so on.
Bad "scientific" ideas (like all bad ideas) have bad consequences. ERIC CONWAY, NAVAN, CO MEATH * Redmond O'Hanlon writes that adherents of evolution rely on "a biased interpretation" (Letters, July 28).
This could not be futher from the truth. One of the main reasons so many books by atheist writers have appeared recently is because of the "intelligent design" concept in the USA.
Over the last few years hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in an attempt by scientists to find evidence for God's handy work in the natural world. They have even tried (unsuccessfully) to have intelligent design inserted into school science courses on the basis that both arguments deserve equall respect, even though Darwinian evolution has literally mountains of ancient evidence to back it up, and intelligent design has no evidence at all, only theory based on parts of evolution which have not been fully explained by conventional science, yet.
If people such as Mr O'Hanlon can't reconcile evolution with the existence of God, then this is as good as proof that God dosen't exist, in the same way we know the earth is not flat because we know its true shape. Proof is always positive which is why nobody can ever find evidence for the non-existence of God.
This book by Ernst Mayr book is probably the best introduction into what evolution is and why there is scientific evidence for it. The mountains of evidence will be obvious if you look for it. The Wikipedia page also gives mountains of evidence from several diverse and independent fields.
It is funny that you question that mountains of evidence exist for evolution since Creationists so rarely care for the evidence. That is because once the evidence is examined, the conclusion of the validity of evolution becomes inevitable.
If you can’t make a good enough argument without resorting to personal attacks, perhaps doing some in-depth reading on the subject matter would help.
Just a suggestion.
The mysterious fact remains..
Who were the parents of the third human on earth?..
Difference between fiction and reality is... fiction MUST SEEM logical..
Ok, grab ahold of my hand ...
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Part 1: The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree
Part 2: Past History
Part 3: Opportunism and Evolutionary Constraint
Part 4: The Molecular Sequence Evidence
Part 5: Change and Mutability
Still with me? Good.
Observed Instances of Speciation
and Some More Observed Speciation Events
And then on to something near and dear to your heart:
The Evidence for Human Evolution
You just exhibited it. Do you really believe that bigotry is excused as long as it is directed towards Christians?
I'm sorry, I had no idea. With a moniker like 'Hoodat', I assumed you were a fundie Muslim.
Yeah, right. I should have known you meant muslim when I saw the words "Holy Bible". Bigotry, lying, and misspelled words all on the same thread. You have outdone yourself.
btw, I will read through your links. Hopefully, I can find some evidence that supports Darwin's theory instead of simply rewriting his theory.
If those in authority, and the electorate were more akin to Coulter, this country would be less like the Euroweenies than that SO uttererly contemptable/despicable in my eye.
If the Europeans where more like Coulter, they may perhaps not actually be EuroWeenies.
LOL. I've been the target of more vicious attacks right here on FR than you can imagine. Oddly enough, they come primarily when I try to discuss the issues regardin evolution.
If you can’t make a good enough argument without resorting to personal attacks, perhaps doing some in-depth reading on the subject matter would help.
I've done some in-depth reading on the subject matter -- since the 1970s, in fact. I've been part of these discussions on FR since the 1990s. I've included Hoodat in this reply because he/she/it asked for evidence. Below, I offer some, already posted here on FR, but evidence none-the-less, and pretty good evidence at that. How long before it's hand-waved away? Again.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum
The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"
And, finally, a comprehensive overview of evidence for evolution, why it's science, and other interesting links: Un-Missing Links
If you don't want to go so far afield, here are two posts on FR with very, very good evidence for evolution:
Tom the Dancing Bug, and ... let's just call it post 661.
I'd listen to Coulter talk about biology just about the same as I'd listen to a Greenpeace hippy talk about a nuclear reactor or a rock star talk about climate change.
I would like a least a little appeal to competence. The same annoys me when someone in particular with a BA in government and no scientific education tries to lecture us on the scientific evidence for climate change.
Most of the public cannot properly discuss scientific evidence because most of the public doesn’t understand the rigorous statistics used in the sciences nor do they understand the details of the sciences and the scientific method. It is OK to discuss and chew the fat with friends and such, but when I want to hear the pros and cons from the media I expect to be greeted by someone who has extensively studied the topic.
NASA gives the media astronauts to help cover space launches. Controversies in astronomy are typically covered by interviewing astronomers. Business stories typically have people knowledgeable in business. Art stories have people knowledgeable in the arts. Is it too much to ask that the news about discoveries and controversies in evolution include interviews with scientists instead of crappy debates between the liberal side and the conservative side where neither of the talking heads knows what they are talking about?
If anyone makes a personal attack against you, the only way we would know is if you let us know by hitting the abuse button.
Obscene comments, double entendres and casual profanity have the potential of offending most people so the best rule of thumb is to refrain from using any of it to make a point.
>>Evolution is preposterous<<
>>the title says it all.<<
I’m sure I’ll see plenty of disagreement as I read down the thread but I think scientists should acknowledge that evolution,like length contraction and time dilation etc is a truly outrageous concept and not at all intuitive for most people.
“One more time for those in the back row:
Darwin himself stated that:” If no transitional animals are found, his theory is not valid”.”
Various posters already replied to the initial post pointing out that many such animals had been found. What was the point of you repeating it?
“Just wanted to add “I’ve never understood how God could expect His creatures to pick the one true religion by faith - it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe.” - Robert Heinlein through Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a Strange Land”
You are assuming that God is intelligent and rational. Obviously, our God isn’t very smart. If God were, it would be able to communicate “The Plan” much more efficiently than it has. For example, we are left to wonder whether there really is a heaven or hell, or a purgatory, or any afterlife at all. A smart omnipotent supreme being knows how to relay that information to its subjects, let’s say, by implanting that knowledge in the genetic code to make it, or maybe putting on a cosmic dog-and-pony show in plain view for all mankind every generation or so. Our God apparently doesn’t believe it is necessary to show up more than once or twice ever.
God left it for us to wonder why the Islamists are so wrong in killing the infidels, when the Judeo-Christian Bible tells us in Leviticus and the rest of fo the Torah to kill the infidels, such as adulterers, and worst of all, disrespectful children. A smart God would have explained the difference to us.
This God has a lot of explaining to do. Like why it is so needy as to require worship from humans in the first place. For an omnipotent supreme deity it is pretty insecure.
I guess I’m basing all of my comparisons on a faulty assumption then. Then again, what we define as rationality may not be the same for a supreme being.
A careful reading of Romans Chapter 1 answers your question. Part of this section tells us:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse”
The fact that men and women refuse to chalk up what they see to the Creator, is not God’s fault, it is man’s. And He holds them accountable. Once you are able to ascribe creation to the Creator (the one spoken of in the Bible), the things that you expressed you do not now know for sure (the existence of heaven, hell, etc.), begin to become knowable.
Darwin also said that “if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my THEORY would absolutely break down”. Well, Behe in “Darwin’s Black Box” describes numerous such organs, such as the blood clotting mechanism, the cilium, bacterial flagellum, etc. These structures are irreducibly complex and the darwinsits cannot answer any of this with their religion.
Take your head out of a book written by men and study nature.
Amazing.!!!!
I'm not the MAN who wrote the book CLAIMING to be the words of God. Seems to me THESE folks are the ones putting the words into the mouth of God. Show me one scrap of paper that God ever wrote and I'll come over to your side.
But, there are none & you can't. So, I re-iterate:
The Bible is written BY MEN - not God.
Nature was created by GOD - not Men.
I'll trust nature - not the Bible.
I'm constantly amazed that folks who claim to worship God would rather put their faith in the words of men than in the marvels that exist all around them.
It shows how well propaganda works.
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.