Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution is preposterous
The Irish Independent ^ | July 7, 2007 | CIARAN FARRELL,

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: darwinism; evolution; fsmdidit; higarky; id; itsadcbitchfest
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 361-366 next last
To: balch3
I only meant to paste the first letter. The second is Darwinist garbage.

Ha Ha Ha!!! It must really suck to get up in the morning knowing you're going to have to spend the whole day being you.

141 posted on 07/08/2007 8:02:43 AM PDT by shuckmaster (The only purpose of the news is to fill the space around the advertisements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: balch3

Why do so many denounce the concept of God using natural processes to introduce and perpetuate his living creations in a dynamic environment, but defend the use of natural processes of rain and flood in Noah story? Couldn’t God have just as easily used the same original process to recreate all life as in Genesis if that was the way He worked?


142 posted on 07/08/2007 11:38:28 AM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: razzle
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.

The Creationists also said the same about the eye. That was until the scientists demonstrated the step by step evolution of every component from photosensors to lenses. The 'irreducible complexity' of the eye turned out to be not irreducibly complex. If the eye can be shown to not be irreducibly complex, your little examples don't have much of a chance.

143 posted on 07/08/2007 1:08:40 PM PDT by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: burzum
Show me the Step by Step “evolution” of the eye that “scientists demonstrated” not to be irreducibly complex. (hint: you might need some help on this one). And don’t tell me that the light sensitive receptor of early creatures “evolved” into the human eye by random mutations, while your at it, also tell me how the early light sensitive receptor “eye” came about in the first place.
144 posted on 07/08/2007 1:26:15 PM PDT by razzle (Liberal Science: Experiments on unborn babies, man-made global warming, and darwinism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: razzle

I’m not going to tell you anything. That is your own job. I’m not your personal researcher. Evolution of the eye is justified and there is plenty of literature on the topic if you actually decide to read it rather than continue spouting your Creationism in this echo chamber. I’ll give you some hints:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
What Evolution Is, Ernst Mayr (you can find it on Amazon.com)


145 posted on 07/08/2007 1:52:57 PM PDT by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: burzum
I just read all your BS and it is unconvincing. Your reaction also shows you are clueless in how to defend your religion. But being the nice guy that I am, I’ll give you some free advice. Go out and read some more; try Darwins Black Box for starters.
146 posted on 07/08/2007 5:51:34 PM PDT by razzle (Liberal Science: Experiments on unborn babies, man-made global warming, and darwinism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Coyoteman, I am still waiting for your explanation of the
fossils found in the Cambrian Layer. This is one of the
questions I posed to you previously.
147 posted on 07/08/2007 6:48:36 PM PDT by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: razzle
I just read all your BS and it is unconvincing. Your reaction also shows you are clueless in how to defend your religion. But being the nice guy that I am, I’ll give you some free advice. Go out and read some more; try Darwins Black Box for starters.

Clueless to defend the theory? Hardly. I just don't feel like handholding you. I post on evolution threads for fun, not because I personally care that some random Young Earth Creationist FReeper will understand a little of the science behind evolution. That chance is as likely as they will understand the science behind the Big Bang or geology. They won't--it directly conflicts with their religious views. It is verboten.

148 posted on 07/08/2007 7:01:52 PM PDT by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: upcountryhorseman
Coyoteman, I am still waiting for your explanation of the fossils found in the Cambrian Layer. This is one of the questions I posed to you previously.

From the Index of Creationist Claims

Hope this suffices.

I hope you have not been relying on those creationist websites for your information. They have been known to misrepresent, distort, and flat-out lie about science and what science has discovered.

149 posted on 07/08/2007 7:19:49 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: HighWheeler
AW JEEZ, NOT THIS SH**again !!

AW JEEZ, NOT THIS TIRESOME PIC again


150 posted on 07/08/2007 7:23:38 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: balch3

I’m only here to let you read my tag line.


151 posted on 07/08/2007 7:24:03 PM PDT by fish hawk (The religion of Darwinism = Monkey Intellect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3; Aetius; Alamo-Girl; AndrewC; Asphalt; Aussie Dasher; AnalogReigns; banalblues; Baraonda; ...
"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."

Is this humor? - You couldn't take a stroll around the block without walking on considerable evidence.

152 posted on 07/08/2007 7:28:47 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fish hawk
I’m only here to let you read my tag line.

OK. Me too.

153 posted on 07/08/2007 7:29:03 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

I know, I included the second pro Darwinist letter by accident.


154 posted on 07/08/2007 7:30:02 PM PDT by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: AntiKev; Jedi Master Pikachu
")A thousand years ago everybody KNEW the Earth was the centre of the universe. Five hundred years ago everybody KNEW the Earth was flat..."

Poor analogy.

Humphreys' equations fairly well prove that the Earth is the center of the universe, give or take a few hundred thousand miles, but there has never been any serious belief that the Earth was flat held by any that navigated it's surface. No serious hiker could ever have held such a belief, since from as small a mountan as 3000 feet the curvature is plainly visible. School teacher talk is insipidly ignorant.

155 posted on 07/08/2007 7:37:43 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rickdylan
"Question is, how do you get people (evolutionites in this case) who are massively wrong to stop acting arrogant about it?"

You can't; the ignorant have always been arrogant.

156 posted on 07/08/2007 7:39:39 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ditter; raybbr
"The God I know is powerful enough to do that."

But the God that I know is powerful enough to do exactly what he said he did: Speak the universe into being by his word, and he also said in his word that he didn't allow any 'evolution.' (more than 100 times)

157 posted on 07/08/2007 7:44:08 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Humphreys' equations fairly well prove that the Earth is the center of the universe, give or take a few hundred thousand miles

You have got to be kidding!

158 posted on 07/08/2007 7:44:10 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: wny
Ann rocks.

She still has the evo-zealots upset.

159 posted on 07/08/2007 7:50:52 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

lol!


160 posted on 07/08/2007 7:51:02 PM PDT by Swordfished
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 361-366 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson