I love it....and keep it up.
Posted on 05/01/2009 9:36:15 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
News flash — “biological examples of recent, rapid variation” disproves evolution. Somehow.
I was going to take a break, but you have persuaded me that I need to post at least one more article exposing darwood’s atheist creation myth before lunch. Thanks for providing the extra motivation I needed to go the distance :o)
All the best—GGG
That CLEARLY disproves the entire Theory of Evolution.....didn't ya know it?
Last time I checked, the earth “rotates” on its axis and ‘revolves’ around the sun.
So, let’s see. You refuse to refer to evolution as a theory, instead stamping it as “the ‘truth’” and then call the notion of the earth’s rotating (sic) around the sun a “theory.” Then, you have the temerity to rhetorically state that no intelligent person questions evolution.
Hmm. So you are giving more credibility to a process that you cannot directly observe than you give to one that you can observe, even with the naked eye (and no, viruses and fruitflies don’t count since the distinction between their species has always been in dispute).
No, I am a Ph.D. who no longer believes in evolution between species, any more than I believe that humans have caused global warming. I began my own “evolution” to this position while a graduate student at Rice University.
Told by my oh so evolutionist professors to attend a lecture by Fred Hoyle, “one of the greatest scientists of our age,” I heard a lifelong Darwinist who questioned evolution. He presented a very broken fossil record which cast a pall over the entire auditorium. Afterwards, the very professors who had sung Hoyle’s virtues told me that the old boy was obviously senile.
Of course, this was a while back and I am told that much of the fossil record has since been filled in. Funny, I was told the same thing before Hoyle’s speech.
Before Hoyle’s speech and the reaction to it, I WAS an evolutionist. But now I simply don’t believe the evolutionary crowd. They have simply lied to me too many times to have any credibility.
In your book, I am probably stupid. I will bear up under that label.
“one more article exposing darwood’s atheist creation myth “
You meant “evolution myth” didn’t you?
Maybe you meant “creation myth” afterall because slowly, but certainly, Darwin is getting further and further into your psyche.....turning you to the dark side....the evil dark side of science.
He's evolving!
“But now I simply don’t believe the evolutionary crowd. They have simply lied to me too many times to have any credibility”
Good grief....Lied to you? You’re kidding, right?
Science doesn’t lie. It can be wrong and be disproven, but a lie? That’s just crazy fundamentalist devil crap.
What you really mean is “I’ve studied the issue and I believe the Biblical version, though requiring no scientific proof, is what I choose to accept”
But that wouldn’t be so dramatic, would it?
Did God tell you to say that?
Darwin didn’t know much about how evolution worked, and much of what he THOUGHT he knew has turned out to be either wrong or incomplete. however, why he’s generally considered the greatest biologist in history, is that (along with Wallace) he could see for the first time that evolution is mathematically inevitable based on some simple facts:
1. per Malthus, populations unrestrained by increasing death rates grow exponentially, and eventually population growth MUST outrun food (and/or other key resource) supply.
2. in species that reproduce sexually, offspring are not just like their parents nor just like their siblings. There is *variation* in reproduction.
3. There is also *conservation* in reproduction: offspring are (statistically) more like their parents and like their siblings than their are like randomly selected members of the species at large.
4. The variation in members of a species will cause a (statistical) variance in successful reproduction rate. For example, in a simple world of foxes and rabbits, near the Mathusian limit, faster foxes will eat more rabbits and hence survive to reproduce, while slower foxes on average will be less successful at survival to the point of reproduction.
If you THINK about it, if 1, 2, 3, & 4 are true (which they are) then the inevitable logical/mathematical result is that over time the members of species will (statistically) drift towards being better suited to their environment.
THAT’S Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. And that’s about all of Darwin’s conjectures that have withstood our rapidly growing knowledge of what really is going on.
If you don’t “believe” in Darwinian evolution in that narrow sense, you don’t believe in logic (or of course you could be successful in refuting 1, 2, 3, or 4 ... good luck with that!).
>Details of how evolution works constantly changing? You mean >like Darwin said two plus two equals five but the Bible says >no, two plus two equals four.
>The Darwinist responds that its been found that two plus >three equals five so the ideas of Darwin are correct.
“THAT’S Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.”
Unfortunately, in much of religious fundamentalism drama must be inserted at every turn. You can’t simply gradations of theory. You have to have either right or wrong - though creationists can’t say things that simply, it has to be “Truth” or “Lies”.
It has to be that way, they say, or the entire Bible is wrong.
So, the Theory of Evolution has to be a “lie” - when within the realm of science there are plenty of details to debate.
Darwin has to be the worst of villains as well.
Sorry, no amount of science, reason, or logic will convince creationists. If you believe in science, then you must “worship at the temple of Darwin” and be an atheist.
That’s the way it works in the Creationist mind. It’s not about science, it’s about Fundamentalist ideology.
Hoyle was an astrophysicist. He gave a few lectures in the 1970s at Rice on his nucleosynthesis research, thermonuclear and nova events, and solar neutrinos, with the two that I know of being in 1973 and 1975. As far as I know, he never lectured at Rice on evolutionary biology, and never presented any "fossil records" of any kind. I can't even imagine such an event.
==....”see Evos are once again proving creation”
They really have no choice in the matter. They are, after all, studying God’s creation, whether they want to admit it or not. As such, the data is creationist data by definition.
Proof that we are not descended from monkeys...otherwise I would be just like them. As the old saying goes, monkey see, monkey do :o)
A curious necessity for YECers is that racial differences, microevolution, must occur at a rate more rapid than classic Darwinists assume. And that degradation of the genome (as in accumulation of “junk DNA) is rapidly occurring.
Obviously, it is you who are failing to understand, otherwise you would be a biblical creationist...duh!
Yes, YEC’ers are too dumb to realize that they DO believe in Evolution, and at a rate and power many thousands of times what observation could support.
What they do NOT believe in, but are not conversant or knowledgeable about the subject enough to say correctly; is the common descent of species.
==A curious necessity for YECers is that racial differences, microevolution, must occur at a rate more rapid than classic Darwinists assume. And that degradation of the genome (as in accumulation of “junk DNA) is rapidly occurring.
It’s only rapid if you assume random mutations. However, if our genome/epigenomes were designed by God to adapt to changing environmental circumstances, then rapid adaptation makes perfect sense.
Also, haven’t you heard, there is not such thing as “junk” DNA anymore. This darwinist prediction turned out to be dead wrong...just as creation scientists have long predicted.
Still waiting for the creationists to publish their book of kinds.
It takes way too much faith to believe in evolution...I’ll go with the God created faith. :O)
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.