Posted on 10/01/2012 8:26:41 AM PDT by fishtank
bookmark
Wow. Beautifully stated. Summarizes the creationist mindset perfectly.
Creationist Ping!
You are right F.T.- If evolution is settled science why is there so much hate and anger against any one who brings up simple questions.-A film about scientists who have been driven out of colleges for simply having a different view is called...”Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”... by Ben Stein. This is a well made film discussing the harrassment of those who dare question the left’s new religion of Darwin... I recommend it...
http://www.amazon.com/Expelled-No-Intelligence-Allowed/dp/B0032CRODE
I have known colleagues in major universities of high repute as research centers, fully accredited professors, peer review and published, that would not accept the evolutionary model simply on the basis of utter improbability. Of course they did not publicize their unacceptable doubts, since the gateway to tenure in all such educational institutions is controlled by evolutionists.
I would find most interesting an explanation as to the process that produced the first double helix, so essential to so many of the signature processes of the phenomenon called “life.”
There is quite a bit unsettled about fossil and I don't trust anyone who claims they are evidence for evolution.
The big difference between Creationist and Evolutionist is that the Creationist will admit his belief in religion. The evolutionist will not admit that evolution is their religion.
this stuff appears whenever somone wantst to make FR look like a kook site.
we have an election starting NEXT WEEK, early voting in Ohio.
This can wait for November 7.
YES E.J.—”on the basis of utter improbability.”.....I’m told that anything greater than 1 to the 10th power squared is impossible. - so evolution is is 1 to the 20 billion squared...too big an improbability to ignore-—
Cherry-picked facts and quotes, strung together with logical fallacies is not “science”.
But evolutionists will either ignore those facts or discount them because “time” is their “allie”. I have come to the conclusion that evolution is nothing more than abiogenesis in new clothes. Creation makes more sense, and the only way to explain the cambrian explosion.
He has an engineering degree, therefore he is not a scientist? I should think that someone trained in an applied science with an advanced degree would possess a sufficient understanding of the scientific method to evaluate a theory (or rather an "undemonstrated hypothesis").
At the very least he has researched the history of evolution and evolutionists in their quest to demonstrate the validity of their theory. It is clear that these evolutionists do not base their positions "on science, but upon faith" in the correctness of the theory, in spite of the lack of evidence to support it. Look who is exercising "faith".
“some birds evolved longer beaks than other based on environmental factors and geography,”
Agree with your final point, but I will point out that this is adaptation, not a supposed evolutionary process.
Evolutionists, like Global Warmists, define "scientist" to exclude anyone that doesn't agree.
“time” is not their “ally”, it is their magic fairy dust.
bfl
Why don’t you ping JR if you think that he wants FR to be an anti-creation, Darwinist site?
I once had a mathematics professor from a highly respected university tell me that our universe had to exist as it is at some point because of an infinite amount of time. When I asked him what he meant by “time” he rolled his eyes at me, and said something about there having to be time “before the Big Bang”. I don’t think his department is in the same frame of reference as the physics department at that school.
He was the Civil Engineering department head at Virginia Tech for many years, as well.
No slouch.
An engineer is trained to spot fallacies, inconsistencies, and illogical thinking.
The world is waking up to the fact that ‘evolution’ is about as ‘scientific’ as “global warming”.
Cite this article: Morris, H. M. 2012. The Scientific Case Against Evolution. Acts & Facts. 41 (10): 4-5.
If Henry Morris died in 2006, when was this article written? The latest reference is 2000. Telling people to cite this article as being written in 2012 is dishonest.
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.