Skip to comments.Evolution is preposterous
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.
I only meant to paste the first letter. The second is Darwinist garbage.
That it happened by God's design in God's time.
"Oi! You over there in the puddle with the 18 eyes and 36 legs...yes you! Stand upright, breath oxygen, walk over here and paint the 'Mona Lisa'!"
OK, not quite, but something along those lines. : )
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, ...Good find. Tell it brother!
Being Creationist is not the same as being a flat Earther.
The problem with your second point is that the science is known to be in its infancy. We’re learning new things every day, and there are many big mysteries yet to be solved. They’ve been studying evolution for what? About 150 years yeah? I’m going to paraphrase Men In Black (yeah I know, bad movie to quote in a science thread but there’s a really good quote that explains the viewpoint). “A thousand years ago everybody KNEW the Earth was the centre of the universe. Five hundred years ago everybody KNEW the Earth was flat. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.”
We see evolution in (Human) behaviour, why can’t it exist in biology? The problem with the “young Earth” theory is that it doesn’t stand up to scientific inquiry either. But the difference between scientists and creationists is that scientists are always willing to entertain a new theory if it is supported by facts, creationists are not.
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
God created Evolution!
You mean you only meant to use the garbage you agree with don’t you? It’s pathetic when you have to post letters to the editor from an Irish paper to try and prove your point.
Question is, how do you get people (evolutionites in this case) who are massively wrong to stop acting arrogant about it?
I sense... Irony.
But also more accurate than the first.
Only Darwin (and a few million medical doctors and scientists) could understand Evolution.
And yet have to resort to name calling to defend the theory.
What, you don't see how the directive to "visit the great universities, Oxford, Cambridge, Bologna etc" applies to topic of evolution? That portion of the text doesn't seem to follow the rest of the letter. There must be a Latin phrase to explain such things...if only I could think of it... ;-)
Yes he did! The God I know is powerful enough to do that. I have never seen anything to argue about here. Evolution was Gods plan and it is brilliant!
And, anyone who takes the Bible literally, as fact, word for word, is delusional and foolish. It is a book, written by men, containing selected stories (to push a "political" agenda - just like the NYTimes), with errors by men, additions by men, exaggerations by men, omissions by men and lies by men - just like every other book in existence.
As my Jesuit college professor taught:
"It contains TRUTH - not Facts".
When you find the actual bible that God personally wrote - you can then have a factual leg to stand on. Until then, it's just another book of good ideas - kind of like a "Hints from Heloise" - but with deeper implications.
Ann Coulter hammers the evolution theory pretty convincingly in her latest book, “GODLESS”. Give it a read.
“Yes he did! The God I know is powerful enough to do that. I have never seen anything to argue about here. Evolution was Gods plan and it is brilliant!”
Nah. What would be brilliant would be to speak every living thing/to bring about every living thing into creation at the moment of utterance/action. The ensuing (and current) debate is nothing more than a discussion of God, God’s character (in particular His omnipotence), and man’s willingness/ability to believe. Again, brilliant.
You and I are on the same page.
He'd be like "What, you think I'm so friggin' weak & stupid that I can't set up a progressive evolutionary system that will get me the results I want?. I mean, WTF?? I create and entire extra-dimensional orderly universe with billions of stars and planets and math & logic to hold it all together - with one hell of alot fewer 'bugs' than a simple Windows operating system, create life on it and watch it grow - and you think that, to achieve my goals, I had to 'zap' all these individual creatures into being like a Penn & Teller show???
Then some dumb-ass humans - who have only evolved about 25% of the way towards my final design - would rather put all of their faith in the words of some corrupt old men trying to seize money, power & control for themselves rather than look around at my creation, study it, marvel at it's complexity and try to figure it all out.
I mean, for Christ's sake - I mean 'my sons' sake, they're like teenagers who read a little Karl Marx - then go off on their little communist 'for the people' tirades - until they grow up and reality hits them in the face.
Ah, but what can I expect, they only evolved their frontal lobes a few million years ago...and I guess some of them are still nervous about actually using them
Kids, sometimes they sure are a pain in the butt."
“”What, you think I’m so friggin’ weak & stupid that I can’t set up a progressive evolutionary system that will get me the results I want?. “
It is the notion of evolution that presents a weak God. The idea that God can create completeness (total beings, creatures, worlds, physical laws, etc.) out of nothingness posits a God who is greater in strength, power, wisdom and majesty.
I might also suggest that the weaker our view of who God is has direct bearing on how we reverence Him. Today, our society talks of Him (and His Son) as if he were just another being that “evolved”, and not the One who has fashioned all things.
So what’s up with dinosaurs, anyway?
My pet chimp said the same thing just yesterday.
LOL @ defective light. Somebody’s bulb needs changing.
Exactly! How does evolution explain their appearance factually beyond all need to speculate, hypothesize, theorize, fill in a gap or two?
Your answers, like mine will involve, at some point, something along the lines, “We just don’t know definitively at this point.” (though I might use a scriptural reference along the lines, “Now, we see through a glass darkly.”)
Most evolutionists will refuse to even acknowledge the idea that the missing 10, 20, 30, 80 whatever percent they do not know/understand “yet” (they must ever insist that, like the calvary, these missing bits and pieces are on the way)—they will steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that what they do not now currently possess as fact, is believed on through faith. Their system of thought requires a component of belief in what is not known, just like the religionist.
Yeah God made a mistake, erased them and accidentally left evidence of his falliability.
“...nobody can ever find evidence for the non-existence of God. “
Incorporeal, absent, invisible, convenient, and fictional suffice for me.
God does not make mistakes, men do.
My comment was to point out that evolutionists and those that would comment on things like the appearance of dinosaurs have to, at some point, rely on a bit of theorizing, hypothesizing and, speculation about such things. You asked me about the appearance of dinosaurs and how I would explain them. Not being a scientist, I can in no way do such a thing. I can follow the scientist in his reasoning (to a certain extent, then, because my knowledge in so many of the various spheres of scientific inquiry is quite limited, I must relent. I am, however, able to reason and have come to realize that the scientist, LIKEWISE, comes to the end of his knowledge. It is at this point that, as in the case of the appearance of dinosaurs, they must hypothesize/theorize/speculate. Sometimes (most times?) these are grounded on solid reasoning. Fine. I am a believer in critical thinking skills. That doesn’t make these unknown areas FACT. Thus, what is being believed on/trusted in is ascribed to based on faith. That, by the way, is fine, too. But realize that this is what you are doing.
If you believe that science will, at the end of the day, prove all that you’ve come to believe about things like evolution and the appearance of dinosaurs, just trust to it. But don’t get upset if people choose to subscribe to different faith-based options.
well, there’s five minutes I’ll never get back. what was the point of spamming us all with that?
It’s all about creation both universe and life. Evolution is but a subset to examine life.
The most rational universal explanation is that there is a creator and that the universe and its contents were created. What other explanation comes remotely close?
Well, I'm convinced. I finally see the light! Yes, yes, it's clear: 1000's of scientists across the world are involved in a massive conspiracy to keep people from God and Jesus. Satanists all of them!!!!!! Bring back the firey stake!!!!!
< /sarc > (just in case it's not clear to some real thick skulls)
The point, not meant as a serious one, is that I was pinged to an Irish list with this anti-evolution item, and here was a Scotch called Evolution. Listening to the whole thing was strictly optional.
I notice that’s from a Catholic Apologetics group. Stubborn cusses, aren’t they?
It's youse "comedians" who are ruining this site!
LOL! The mother of all conspiracy theories.
Yes, a creator who created himself is a rational explanation. Can I get fries with that?
Algore ought to hire this writer to put some additional hyperbole into his flaming Global Warming preposterousness.
Ann made a fool of herself when she took on evolution.
Most of what she included was warmed over tripe of the sort you find on creationist websites.
A summary of the rebuttals can be found here: Index of Creationist Claims.
> “It [the Bible] contains TRUTH - not Facts”.
What kind of twisted thinking is THAT?
If it’s not factual, how can it be truthful?
And if it’s not truthful, how can it be factual?
What am I missing?
Sounds a lot like Dan “false, but accurate” Rather.
You are thinking that's the path. Take the next logical step - the creator always was and always will be. Sure you can have fries, thank the creator for being able to.