Posted on 09/25/2015 7:10:33 AM PDT by Heartlander
Evidence of ID is overwhelming and undeniable, beginning with the purposeful makeup your own body, its DNA and all the intricate parts that work individually and together that make up a multi-functioning body. Proof of purposeful and intricate design is proof of a Designer.
The myth of evolution between species has no evidence and is contrary to the laws of (true) science. The best refutation of evolution is intelligent design which is everywhere, evidence more numerous than the sand of the sea.
Compare the barrenness of evidence to support Darwin’s Doctrine of Common Descent with the copious evidence of intelligent design. Darwinism fails miserably to produce a preponderance of evidence compared to intelligent design. Darwinism’s case against intelligent design and creation fails to present a genuine dispute of a material fact and, therefore, demands summary judgment and the case thrown out. Darwin fails scientifically and legally.
Darwinism is an imaginary pipe dream from a former Christian/church-goer who tried to deny creation only to find himself disillusioned by his own myth at the end of his life. Darwinism is dead letter. Dead dead. Deader than Darwin himself.
S***storm incoming...
While I agree, there’s a lot of more imminent attacks to worry about other than ID vs. Darwinism.
The USA did not used to have a “noble allergy to faith” which is the thing behind the modern reticence to do anything that has religious or faith implications.
With common core math teaching that there is no absolute truth, today’s kids will not have the ability to reason logically by themselves. They are being taught to survive like Romanian orphans.
Thanks for posting. Saving to hard drive.
Evolutionist passionately defend a theory based on early 20th century science and technology. The “simple” cell turned out to be a highly complex building block of life. Mathematics tied to probability, physics tied to thermodynamics and entropy, and experimental efforts over a 50 year time period have established that the DNA molecule will not randomly self-create out of proteins in a “primordial” soup. In a funny way, the evolutionist need to evolve their thinking to catch up with modern science and quit clinging to an obsoleted early 20th century theory.
After reading Stephen Meyers books I became a strong skeptic of evolution.
I think some of the reluctance of more mainstream scientists in accepting ID stems from a fear that it would drastically reduce scientific research because one could just say “the designer did it”, just like when lightning or earthquakes were just God’s will.
Saying lightning or earthquakes were just God’s will certainly hasn’t reduced scientific research has it?
Lies are never a harbinger of truth, and uncovering scientific truth is ostensibly what scientific research is all about. Truth begets truth. Intelligent design, the truth, leads scientific research down the right path to uncovering more fascinating discoveries.
“evolution between species has no evidence and is contrary to the laws of (true) science”
What laws of science is it contrary to?
Second law of Thermodynamics.
Intelligent Design cannot disprove evolution unless you can prove it’s impossible for the design to include the ability to evolve.
“Second law of Thermodynamics.”
Does not life itself seem to be contrary as well?
It’s really ID versus Darwinism (”The Origin of the Species).”
There is no dispute that evolution happens within an animal group. Darwinism claims no Designer as the origin of life and, thus, requires evolution between animal groups, a problem Darwin, a former church-goer, died unable to resolve.
” Saying lightning or earthquakes were just God’s will certainly hasn’t reduced scientific research has it?”
That’s because there were people who would not accept the explanation that it was just “God’s will”.
In Islam where the “God’s will” explanation is more rigidly enforced there’s very little scientific research, in fact it is frowned upon.
I think ID has a lot of merit, but at the same time I don’t want to go back to the mentality of the dark ages.
If the actual disagreement is the origin of life, why is abiogenesis being conflated with evolution?
If that were true the 2nd L/T wouldn't be much of a theory would it? Yet it is settled and sound scientific theory for going on two centuries.
Yes it does. That’s the point.
Again don’t confuse truth with lies.
The Dark Ages were characterized by banning dissemination of knowledge, especially the Bible and Bible knowledge. The Church-State dictated what it wanted pole to know. Much like today. Government schools don’t educate and foster examination and inquiry into knowledge, but indoctrinate students with doctrines of the anti-Christian Left.
The truth, especially Bible truth, brought about in the Reformation, broke the spell of the Dark Ages and lead to massive increase of knowledge and discovery.
Knowing the truth gives light, sets you free, and leads to more light. Knowing the truth never leads to darkness.
More confusion.
The precise meaning and use of words like “evolution” get blurred over time, especially in our modern culture of government schools that favor such confusion.
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.