Refuting Darwinism, point by point

WorldNetDaily,com ^ | 1-11-03 | Interview of James Perloff

[Stultis]

You Establishment Religion Darwinites can explain how an egg physico-chemically develops into a mature organism! Then maybe you call the Evolutionary Egg "God"? Your religion makes no sense.

This could be interesting. What are you saying about the process of development? Are you suggesting that divine interventions are involved? Does the embryological development of a human being, for instance, require such interventions?

[Dimensio]

In a few words, the fossil record is full of gaps, more today than ever before, not transitional forms;

The claim that there are no transitional forms is so thorougly discredited that the claim can only be considered an outright lie. As for 'gaps', well, yes there are more gaps. The difference is that while before there were lots of really big gaps, now there are much smaller ones. Of course, Creationists insist that unless a fossil is found for every single 'intermediate' form between one species and another, evolution is falsified. Nevermind that fossilization isn't that common.

that it is species remain stable over millions of years,

Really? You've observed species for millions of years at a time to test this?

i.e. they exhibit stasis, not change; no credible mechanism of change, none, has been found.

No mechanism for change? If you're going to use faulty arguments, at least resort to something other than outright lies.

As to this latter, the Evolutionists have even tried "chance", which is flat ludicrous. Science is supposed to explain. Chance explains nothing. And on and on ...

I'm not sure what this means? "Chance", if anything, would only refer to changes in an environment which would allow for some organisms to survive based upon their genetic traits while others die off, but you've phrased it so vaguely that I can only assume that you really don't know what you're talking about.

[Stultis]

These were the Classical liberals...

Darwin, like most 19th Century evolutionists after him, was a classical liberal. The political party he belonged to, the Whigs, is the one that gave rise to the Republican party in America. (Lincoln, born on the same day as Darwin, was also a Whig.)

Conversely, many opponents of evolution were classical conservatives. They were suspicious of free enterprise, aghast at social mobility (and abolitionism), and wanted to maintain the priveleges of the (established) clergy and aristocracy. Some of the strongest denunciations of Darwin and evolution were published in Tory journals.

[Condorman]

This placemarker is umop-apisdn.

[fabian]

Actually I didn't say that, I know some liberals believe in God. But government programs are more needed as people fall away from their faith.

[f.Christian]

The evolutionist ' libertarian' mind set is so anti - God // science . . .

they just run to every czar // gulag camp // school - - -

looking for freedom from from reality(God // science // truth) ! ! !

Lemmings // drones // evobotniks // slaves ! ! !

[metacognative]

You Darwinite fanatics are are talking about God and "Divine interventions" Can we stick with real science about what we can explain? And not invent 'just so' stories about waht we wish had happened between the algae and the ecosystem.

[f.Christian]

Conversely, many opponents of evolution were classical conservatives. They were suspicious of free enterprise, aghast at social mobility (and abolitionism), and wanted to maintain the priveleges of the (established) clergy and aristocracy. Some of the strongest denunciations of Darwin and evolution were published in Tory journals.

This might have been the case - - - true in England . . . but not America // the opposite ! ! !

[Dimensio]

You say that some liberals believe in God. Are you willing to accept that not every atheist is a liberal, though?

[Dimensio]

You Darwinite fanatics are are talking about God and "Divine interventions" Can we stick with real science about what we can explain? And not invent 'just so' stories about waht we wish had happened between the algae and the ecosystem.

From the article:

"But actually, it's the teaching of Darwin's theory as a "fact" that starts many young people doubting the existence of God. Once we stop believing in God, we discard his moral laws and start making up our own rules, which is basically why our society is in so much trouble. In short, Darwinism is very relevant – it's much more than a science matter."

The article brings up God first. Pretending that those opposing the article started the god-talk is pure dishonesty.

[Phaedrus]

The claim that there are no transitional forms is so thorougly discredited that the claim can only be considered an outright lie.

Look who's calling me a liar. Buzz off, Dimensio. We've had our words before and you would just again lose the debate.

[Stultis]

Mussel Glue

[PatrickHenry]

... while before there were lots of really big gaps, now there are much smaller ones.

Yes, the gaps that remain are what's left after several large gaps have been plugged. Each time a transitional fossil is found, and there have been many, the creationists are backed into a smaller and smaller corner.

The biggest -- and to me the best -- example is the hoary old claim of the creationists: "You haven't found the missing link!" This is important for two reasons: (a) creationists made their one big prediction that no intermediate (sub-human) species existed; and (b) evolution predicted that such must have existed, and that perhaps one day their fossils would be found. A perfect setup for the creationists to test their "scientific" theory.

But now that this one crucial cornerstone of creationism has been shattered (i.e. special creation of man with no intermediate species), they still won't give up. They never do; they never will. Prominent Hominid Fossils.

[Stultis]

In nature, it is scientifically impossible for a less complex system, organic or inorganic, to move from the less to the more complex.

So you were more complex as a unicellular zygote than you are as a cognitive, multicellular animal posting to the intenet on your computer? Maybe there is something a wee bit wrong with your formulation, eh?

[Dimensio]

I would lose? You mean that you would come up with more unsubstantiated assertions than I, like the bit about there being no transitional fossils?

[f.Christian]

"I was a communist(DEVILCRAT // liberal // lunatic // evolutionist)for 30 years . . .

and I listened to so much of this demagoguery(lies // ideology // spin // left rhetoric) that now - - -

with my democratic(conservative // creationist // REPUBLICAN) views - - -

I can no . . . longer(link) - - - stand it,"

[Phaedrus]

Now Dimensio, you've been dismissed. We've had our conversation earlier. You will subsequently be ignored.

[Stultis]

You point is also attested to in a backhanded way by creationists themselves. On a number of occasions, while agreeing that there are no transitional forms, they have disagreed as to which side of the non-transtion a non-transitional form belongs.

Creationists, for instance, are certain that Archaeopteryx is in no sense transitional, or indicative of any transition, between reptiles and birds. However some claim that it is not transitional because it is a reptile (with hoaxed feathers) whereas most claim it is not transitional because it is NOT a reptile, but simply a bird.

The archaic ceticean Basilosaurus has been identified both as just a whale and as a marine reptile, in this case (at different times, i.e. before versus after its rear limbs were discovered) by the same individual, creationist fossil "expert" Duane Gish!

Homo erectus, albeit different examples thereof, has been classified by creationists both as an ape and as a human.

[balrog666]

Wow, I am ever more amazed at these people's arrogance for their ignorance. Maybe lying for God isn't really a sin?

[BMCDA]

Good lord, Creationists are still pushing this lie? It only shows that they don't actually know the theory.

Yepp, they still do but you never see other creationists who know this to be one of the most ridiculous arguments against evolution (even AiG says it shouldn't be used) criticize them. This seems to confirm what VadeRetro remarked on that other 4500-post thread and what I have also observed here and on other crevo-boards:
Never criticize one of your fellow creationists in front of evolutionists even if you know that his claims are false.