Posted on 08/01/2008 10:34:24 AM PDT by OneVike
Excuse me, Darwin himself stated that he could be disproved if his ideas were not backed up by future studies which they haven’t.
Here is a litany of problems with Darwin and his ideas from the book
“The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design”
Written by Jonathan Wells
Regnery Publishing (Softcover) 273 pages, 2006
Here are just a few of the topics covered in this book the Darwinists don?t want you to read:
* How, though Darwin is often credited with citing “overwhelming evidence” for his theory of natural selection, all he actually provided was “one or two imaginary illustrations” of how it might work
* Why many of Darwin’s contemporaries regarded the same data he cited as evidence, not of common ancestry, but of common design
* One pro-Darwin science writer who candidly admits that the chain of fossil ancestry is “a completely human invention created after the fact”
* How, despite centuries of artificial breeding and decades of experiments, no one has ever observed one species turn into another (”speciation”)
* Why most alleged instances of “observed” speciation are actually analyses of already existing species that show how speciation might occur — but never that it has
* Darwin vs. Darwin: how he conceded that his theory was contradicted by known evidence (or lack thereof), though he hoped later findings would vindicate him - which still hasn’t occurred after 150 years
* How Darwin’s “strongest single class of facts” — the early vertebrate embryos — shows the opposite of what he thought it showed
* The Cambrian Explosion — aka biology’s “Big Bang”: how it contradicts Darwin’s branching “Tree of Life”
* Word games Darwinists play (example: exploiting the diverse meanings of “evolution” to distract critics)
* How science textbooks continue to feature “evidence” for Darwinism that has long since been proven fraudulent
* “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” one Darwinist claims. Then why were most major biological disciplines founded either before Darwin, or by scientists who rejected his theory?
* Why the clinical practice of medicine has no use for Darwinism, despite claims that it is impossible to practice medicine without applying its principles
* Evolutionary biologist: “Perhaps it would be easier, and in the long run more productive, to abandon the attempt to force the data . . . into the mold provided by Darwin”
* Modern microbiologist: “Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another”
* National Academy of Sciences member: “Darwin’s theory ... serves no important role in guiding modern experimental biology. That branch of science simply makes no practical use of Darwin’s theory”
* How Darwin’s theory provided the pseudoscientific foundation for the Nazis’ racial extermination policies
* How Haeckel’s famous faked embryo drawings were widely used to promote abortion in late twentieth-century America by convincing people that human embryos were little more than fish
* How the most common definition of Intelligent Design in the news media is flatly incorrect
* How living cells — which Darwin thought were mere blobs of protoplasm — actually consist of countless molecular machines that have all the hallmarks of design
* How design can be inferred not only in living things but also in various features of the cosmos, such as gravity
* How the Earth itself seems uniquely designed not only for life, but also for scientific observation
* How Darwin changed the definition of “science” itself to mean providing materialistic explanations for everything
* How Darwinism is widely used in public education to discredit traditional Christianity and promote atheism
* How Darwinists have openly declared that they will destroy the careers of professors and students who criticize them or defend intelligent design — and they’re doing it
The human form that God walked with Adam in was most likely a Christophony. That is Christ before he was born in human form. Christ is and always was one third of the Holy Trinity. The same thing happened when Abraham argued God from 50 to 10 people who might be righteous to keep God from destroying Sodom.
I have read a lot of what they write. They start with a preordained conclusion, and proceed to stretch, distort, and misrepresent scientific evidence, as well as fabricate the most amazing nonsense, to validate their a priori conclusions.
That is not real science, nor can that type of "evidence" overturn real evidence.
It has been real, and I enjoyed the debate. I must now leave and take my wife to the store. I’ll check in later.
Lambert Dolphin! I met him a few times a couple of decades ago when he was a scientist. He sure has gone off the deep end since then!
On what basis is that belief held?
The earliest examples of proto-writing (essentially the etching of symbols which probably represented something, but not actual words in a sentence) only goes back to about 3,100 BC.
I understand well that if you believe Noah's Flood occurred 2,000 BC, these are pre-flood writings, which means we should also find them among the fossil remains of the dinosaurs, although we don't.
The problem with creation and the biblical timeline is that it doesn't correspond to anything we can observe. One account must be accepted on blind faith, and the other is based on observable and testable evidence.
There simply is no evidence that I'm aware of that the Books of Moses were based on earlier writings passed down from Adam. That people believe it anyway, I do not dispute.
Well it depends on which string theorist you are talking too whether it is 10, 11, 17 or whatever dimensions : ) I also like asking them for experimental evidence. String Theory is dead.
Thanks for the author I will certainly check him out.
Author? Aleph Null is a concept. "Aleph-null is the primordal one that contains all numbers, everything in the Universe. Every angle simultaneously, without distortion, overlapping or confusion. Kaballa mysticism"
That reminds me of a book I saw at the store called The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible, which had something on the cover that said “The Bible made Modern Science, which is why it started in the Middle Ages.” I just didn’t understand that, because one statement didn’t logically follow the other. But seeing these connections, it makes a little more sense.
If you want a reading tip. I heartily recommend, "The Feynman lectures on Physics" (another one of those Jews : ) ) Every page had something new or something that I had never considered before.
Feynman is brilliant ping.
Are there errors? Of course. It doesn't take a genius to look up "Biblical contradictions" on the internet and find a ton of them. Some are easily explained away, and others can't be.
I think we can agree that God didn't deliver a new book to a prophet to copy. None of them claim that, anyway. The closest we have to that is the Ten Commandments, and you even get slightly different versions of them in the Bible.
So what we have in the Bible are writings that have been deemed inspired by God, written by men, and then compiled by other men who we assume were inspired to selected the writings that were inspired.
It's like double hearsay, once-removed, offered as evidence. That doesn't mean it's wrong. It means you have to accept it as a matter of faith, and not a matter of fact.
I'm not trying to diss the Bible. But one account is correct, possibly, but that rules the others out.
In my mind, it doesn't matter, because I'm looking for a message, not an accurate historical account of anything.
I think the Bible is flat out wrong about Noah's Flood and I think the story of Adam and Eve is just an allegory.
I could be wrong, but I do look at the evidence we can verify and try to fit it into my world view of exactly how we became to be.
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.