Persisting in Spite of the Evidence: Why Darwinism Is False

This series is a MUST READ imho!

There is no such thing as “Darwinism”. Just because liberals treat it like religious doctrine doesn’t mean the case is the same with everyone who accepts it.

The idea that people need to choose between God as creator and evolution is more than an annoyance, it is a major embarrassment.

Exactly. bttt

Some day they will post an article called “Why Creationism is TRUE” to go with their millions of “Why Darwinism is False” postings. Dont hold your breath.

Tell that to Richard Dawkins et al!!!

For the most part, you are right. When GGG, or one of many other creationists on FR use the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinist," it is often a blatant and erroneous attempt to frame the ToE as a religious movement.

However, it is also used in a more neutral sense to describe natural selection and to differentiate evolution as described by Darwin between other evolutionary theories such as modern synthesis and Lamarckism.¹

Yes that’s why I put the word in quotes.

I post articles the demonstrate Why Creation is TRUE all the time.

Have you donated today?
https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/

Evolutionists - whether materialistic or “theistic” - live in a group autistic self-contained fact space.

Thanks, GGG. I've actually decided to go out and purchase Dr. Coyne's book.

Curious how quickly the “Belief in the Scriptures is embarrassing to Darwinist/Christians” argument arrived.

Seems to be the new hymn at The Temple of Darwinism.

I’m glad to see that you have taken Dr. Wells’ advice :o)

“Nevertheless, biology students might find Coyne’s book useful. Given accurate information and the freedom to exercise critical thinking, students could learn from Why Evolution Is True how Darwinists manipulate the evidence and mix it with theology to recycle a false theory that should have been discarded long ago.”

I post articles the ~~demonstrate~~ opine Why Creation is TRUE all the time.

Fixed it for you.

"I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection."

—Richard Dawkins

If you haven’t already read it, I’ll let you know how it is. I may even write my own review.

"Why Evolution Is True tries to defend Darwinian evolution by rearranging the fossil record; by misrepresenting the development of vertebrate embryos; by ignoring evidence for the functionality of allegedly vestigial organs and non-coding DNA, then propping up Darwinism with theological arguments about “bad design;” by attributing some biogeographical patterns to convergence due to the supposedly “well-known” processes of natural selection and speciation; and then exaggerating the evidence for selection and speciation to make it seem as though they could accomplish what Darwinism requires of them."

The flim-flam man cometh.

Thank you Sicko-flibs for your usual malodorous smoke.

RE :”Thank you Sicko-flibs for your usual malodorous smoke.”

I know, Darwin and I are evil, burn us at the stake why dont you to keep your kids from going to Hell for believing they are Apes.

I don’t know if you’re evil, but you certainly are insipid.

Let me give you the same lecture I give McCain-iacs, you cant beat something with nothing just by claiming the other side has nothing either.

Born blind, huh!

Talking about you fellow, YOU!

I post articles the demonstrate Why Creation is TRUE all the time. What's up? Still saving the world from science and godless secular humanism?

I post articles the demonstrate Why Creation is TRUE all the time.

What's up? Still saving the world from science and godless secular humanism?

No, you!

And you’ve no idea what this place is all about. You’re a sore thumb without a reason.

"I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection." —Richard Dawkins

One amusing thing about modern fundies is that they're anti-evolution as long as the natural selection has to do with science.

Evolution in economics? They're all for it, bible be darned. "Eye of a needle you say? It depends on interpretation!", "What money lending is bad? uuuuuh... it's only bad in the temple!" etc...

Sore thumb ???

LOL

Since evolutionists regularly use the terms Darwinist and Darwinism they can't really complain about creationists use of the same terms.

Darwinism fits the definition of a religion in its explanation of the world.

RE :”And you’ve no idea what this place is all about. “

Place? Are you typing from Church or Sunday school? I am in a different ‘place’ than you.

Go easy on those heretics. Public School taught them they are just monkeys so they dont remember coming to America on Noah's Ark with the dinosours and instead want abortions.

The idea that people need to choose between God as creator and evolution is more than an annoyance, it is a major embarrassment.

Only problem is, it’s the Hissy-Fit’s and the Dawkins’ of the world doing most of that.

One thing I’ve noticed on here...more on the creationist side are willing to have both taught in schools...but on the liberal side???

Uhhh, not so much.

Sore head?

I just read part 4, and thought I’d make a few comments.

“Nevertheless, Coyne writes, Haeckel’s Biogenetic Law “wasn’t strictly true,” because “embryonic stages don’t look like the adult forms of their ancestors,” as Haeckel (and Darwin) believed, “but like the embryonic forms of their ancestors.””

—Darwin emphatically did NOT believe in Recapitulation or the Biogenetic law. Instead, Darwin believed in the theories of von Baer (which the article actually just previously mentioned, which makes this a rather odd mistake!). Von Baer was a staunch opponent of Haeckel and Recapitulation (and of evolution in general) and his theories were completely incompatible and opposed to Recapitulation (but fit in with Darwinism perfectly, even though, as I said, he wasn’t a Darwinist).

“The result is a circular argument: According to Darwin’s theory, fish are our ancestors; human embryos (allegedly) look like fish embryos; therefore, human embryos look like the embryos of our ancestors. Theory first, observation later—just as von Baer had objected.”

—The author doesn’t seem to understand what a circular argument is. It would only be circular if we believed that we had ancestral fish based (solely) on ontogeny. It was originally based on taxonomy, then it was noticed that the fossil record showed the same pattern, and then later it was noticed that embryology too showed the same pattern. In the words of Agassiz (a rapid anti-evolutionist) put it:
“the phenomena of animal life correspond to one another, whether we compare their rank as determined by structural complication with the phases of their growth, or with their succession in past geological ages; whether we compare this succession with their relative growth, or all these different relations with each other and with the geographical distribution of animals upon the earth. The same series everywhere!”

“Second, the idea that later evolutionary stages can simply be tacked onto development is biologically unrealistic. A human is not just a fish embryo with some added features. As British embryologist Walter Garstang pointed out in 1922, “a house is not a cottage with an extra story on the top. A house represents a higher grade in the evolution of a residence, but the whole building is altered—foundations, timbers, and roof—even if the bricks are the same.””

—And Darwin did not believe that evolution is accomplished via additions (”Terminal additions” as Recapitulationists puts it). Instead, Darwin believed as von Baer did, that we and fish (and reptiles, amphibians, etc) develop in the same way up to a point - and then branch. While Recapitulationists believed that we develop fully into a fish while in the womb and then continue devloping (into a complete amphibian, and then a complete reptile, etc), Darwin believed that we share a common pathway of development with a fish - but only to a point - and then branch and share a common pathway with a reptile - only to a point. Thus, we are never a “fish” or a “reptile”, we never have “fish gills” (although we do have structures that share a common pathway with fish gills and would become fish gills if they didn’t instead become something else. Recapitulationists believe we actually have adult working fish gills at one point). To use the analogy above, Recapitulationists believe that a complete cottage is built, and then stuff is added on, while Darwin believed that a cottage is partially built, but then something different is built. This is also what von Baer believed - and it was the basis of his attack on Recapitulation.

“Third, and most important, vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their earliest stages. In the 1860s, Haeckel made some drawings to show that vertebrate embryos look almost identical in their first stage—but his drawings were faked. Not only had he distorted the embryos by making them appear more similar than they really are, but he had also omitted earlier stages in which the embryos are strikingly different from each other. A human embryo in its earliest stages looks nothing like a fish embryo.”

—The reason for believing that embryos look similar early on has nothing to do with Haeckel, nor does it have anything to do with evolution. To quote the anti-evolutionists anti-recapitulationist von Baer (this is actually quoted earlier in the article itself but apparently the author forgot):
“The embryos of mammals, birds, lizards and snakes, and probably chelonia [turtles] are in their earliest states exceedingly like one another.... In my possession are two little embryos in spirit, whose names I have omitted to attach, and at present I am quite unable to say to what class they belong. They may be lizards or small birds, or very young mammals, so complete is the similarity in the mode of formation of the head and trunk in these animals.”

The reason why our early development is virtually the same as in other vertebrates? Because the genes activated at that time of development are virtually the same! Just as Darwin would have predicted.

At this point the author brings up the ““developmental hourglass”. It has been noticed that at the VERY earliest stages, there is some degree of differentiation between different groups - but it has been found that this is because of effects of the MOTHER’s genes (called “maternal-effect genes”). To use a previous analogy again, it would be like 20 groups of builders given the same blueprints for building identical cottages, but at the very earliest stages there will be some differences do to each group building onto slightly different landscapes. It’s the mother’s womb that causes the slight variations early on, not the genes of the offspring (which is what is relevant to the discussion). The active genes in each group are actually the same, and eventually this causes the different embryos to likewise become virtually identical, before diverging again into the separate species (thus the “hourglass”). It is incredibly dishonest of the author not to point that out.

I just noticed the author is Jonathan Wells... that explains a lot. :-)

I could go on pointing out more mistakes and dishonesty, but that’s probably enough for now. heh

You're scum.

You spam FR and trash this site at LP. Despicable.

==You're scum...You spam FR and trash this site at LP. Despicable.

Just so everyone knows, that isn't me over at LP, so I'm innocent of Jean S' dispicable, baseless, and totally irresponsible accusation. Just because some idiot has the same screenname as me ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BOARD does not mean we are one in the same person. And since I know I am not that person, it is Jean S. fits her own quoted description above.

Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

LOL

Do you post over at Darwin Central?

Would that be making it personal? Wow.

Just a few question that I would like you to answer.

Tell me, what would GGG stand to gain by smearing FR?

What would some impostor who hates FR, JR, and GGG stand to gain by impersonating GGG and smearing FR?

If GGG really did want to bash FR, why would he use is FR handle?

This is not the first time this has happened and probably won't be the last.

You must be aware that there are people who really don't like him. (or FR)

The conclusion I've come to is that someone is impersonating GGG and here is why.

Motive: GGG doesn't have a motive, but a Troll does.
Writing: when I compared GGG's writing side-by-side with the impersonators writing (from a previous incident), there was a very clear difference.
Target: Trolls and disrupter's almost always make the FReepathon an issue.

When you take away GGG's name, it looks like the writings of just another Troll. (an immature one to boot)

Tell me, honestly, what do you think is really going on here?

What evidence leads you to that conclusion?

Thanks in advance.

No, never been there. Posting like this is kinda new to me. This is already the most active I’ve been posting to anywhere. heh

"The reason why our early development is virtually the same as in other vertebrates? Because the genes activated at that time of development are virtually the same! ~~Just as Darwin would have predicted~~ which is what one would expect of creations of the same creator."

I could go and point out more illogic in your rant, but frankly, you are a most boring, and arrogant writer

Let me ask you this. Why would someone steal the name so he could post the same articles at LP that GGG posts on FR?

Is someone out to discredit GGG by impersonating him? Why would anyone do that?

Thanks for replying.

“Let me ask you this. Why would someone steal the name so he could post the same articles at LP that GGG posts on FR?” [excerpt]

To give credibility to their act.

Do you know that the poster on LP isn't just copying the articles posted on FR by GGG?

“Is someone out to discredit GGG by impersonating him? Why would anyone do that?” [excerpt]

Why would a bitter ex-FReeper Evolutionist want to discredit a FReeper Creationist and smear FR?

Actually, there are current FReeper Evo's who dislike GGG enough to do that. (There are also current Evo FReepers who have in the past referred to FR as a nut-house, on their FR pages)

There is no lack of motive for someone wanting to smear GGG and FR.

I would really like you to answer the questions I asked in #41 if its not to much trouble.

Bump that.. Interesting... Very ‘Christian’ duality there?

So you swear on God and Jesus’ name that is not you?

The Bible forbids us to swear an oath in God’s name. But I can assure you, it’s not me.

Whoever it is, they are definitely trying to impersonate me. This imposter was brought to my attention once before, but I simply pointed out was not me, and moved on. As it turns out, the Liberty Post GGG is posting many of the same Creation/ID articles that I post on FR, all the while bad-mouthing FR and encouraging LPers who may also be FReepers not to give during FReepathons. This person is obviously out to get both me and FR.