Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[titanmike]

All of that was before Christ. Or am I missing something?

[Condorman]

Numerous experiments prove [gravity], just living a single day proves it.

What is it that these experiments have proven? Or, to put it another way, what about gravity have experiments proved?

[webber]

Go back and read the last words spoken by your God Darwin. He completely REJECTED EVERYTHING HE WROTE ON THE SUBJECT OF EVOLUTION.

[Condorman]

Post #1307 is waiting for an answer.

Post #1372 has been similarly neglected.

[gore3000]

waiting for g3k to answer a simple question

Patrick Henry the 'open minded' slimer keeps going on and on like the Energizer bunny! To anyone watching this it will be clear what you are doing - persecution of an opponent because the little arrogant slimer who can never engage in a scientific discussion with anyone, does not like to have people show the cavernous holes in his atheistic theory.

You started that stupid smear campaign due to my daring to ask questions about evolution which neither you nor your friends can answer. As I have stated DIRECTLY TO YOU numerous times, I will not answer your irrelevant question. Your dishonesty in not even addressing your post to me is self evident. You are a lamer gratuitously attacking me because I have thoroughly disproven your atheistic/materialistic, pseudo-scientific evolutionary nonsense. The proof is all over this thread from the inability of any of the evolutionists here in showing that abiogenesis is even remotely possible within what science knows to be absolutely true, to the inability of any of the evolutionists here to refute the following posts made some 400 posts ago:

Neither you nor any evolutionists has ever given proof that a single species has transformed itself into another more complex species. If I am wrong, let's see the proof. Come up with a real arguement that slams evolution can you do it?

There are many. The bacterial flagellum is one. The program by which a single cell at conception turns into a 100 trillion cells at the time of birth - with every single cell of the exactly proper kind in the exactly proper place is another. There are many more which have been scientifically proven, but these two should keep you busy for a while.
988 posted on 12/23/2002 7:07 AM PST by gore3000

'Gradual loss of egg laying' is more easily said than done. You must remember that the you need to provide nutrition to the developing organism throughout its development - as well as after the birth until it can feed itself. To say that all these changes can occur simultaneously is totally ludicrous and you have disproven nothing. Let's see an article describing how this change occurred in detail. Can you find any? I doubt it because this is one of the things evolutionists never speak of.
989 posted on 12/23/2002 7:14 AM PST by gore3000

And where did you debunk the flagellum besides in your own mind?

As to the eye spot, your article only says that because it happened more than once then therefore the eye spot could have occurred. It is not a refutation of the complex mechanism required for an eye spot.

BTW - a blog from Don Lindsay is proof of absolutely nothing. The guy cannot even give references for his nonsense.
991 posted on 12/23/2002 7:28 AM PST by gore3000

That none of you evolutionists can refute these scientific questions central to the theory of evolution, shows quite well that your adherence to this theory has nothing to do with science but to your arrogant atheistic proclivities.

[gore3000]

Well many things have been scientifically proven beyond doubt. One is gravity which we have been discussing. Gravity is a fact of life, an indubitable fact of life beyond denial. Numerous experiments prove it, just living a single day proves it. To deny that gravity is a fact is to deny reality. -me-

NOBODY denies that gravity is a fact.

Your evolutionist friends certainly do, that is the reason for the response.

We can observe it,

We certainly can and your evolutionist friends deny that also. We certainly can observe gravity, we can scientifically test for it. We, like it or not, have to live with it on a daily basis. The same cannot be said of evolution. It has never been observed. Since science is about observations, evolution is not science. It's that simple.

[Physicist]

Go back and read the last words spoken by your God Darwin. He completely REJECTED EVERYTHING HE WROTE ON THE SUBJECT OF EVOLUTION.

Please read this page. Don't worry, it's written by creationists. Your assertion is listed as the very first argument that creationists should not use.

[webber]

"Give me a flipping break, in the dark ages, when the Church REALLY had power, they would threaten excommunication to ANY scientist willing to question Church doctrine."

I don't believe what man says, be they the pope, Most Rev, Cardinal, Bishop, Reverend, Pastor, "father", Priest, or Evangelist. I believe what the Bible says. So show me, by quoting scripture, where it says that the Earth is flat, and the Earth is the center of the Universe? HMMMMM?

[gore3000]

Post #1307 is waiting for an answer.

Here's the scientific proof against abiogenesis, you and your friends always ignore it, so I do not know why you wish to see it again. It was already posted on this thread but you cannot bother to read the thread so here it is again:

There is a tremendous amount of proof against abiogenesis. First of all is Pasteur's proof that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem).

The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.

[Condorman]

You started that stupid ["How old is the Earth?"] smear campaign due to my daring to ask questions about evolution which neither you nor your friends can answer.

You've rarely been hesitant to express an unqualified opinion. Why the sudden silence on the age of the earth? This behavior is strangely uncharacteristic.

Furthermore, this can hardly be called a smear campaign unless you fear that somehow your answer to this simple question will be used against you. And if you fear that your answer to this simple question will somehow be used against you, you must suspect that your opinion might be wrong. And if you suspect that your opinion might be wrong, but persist in refusing to answer, then you must be unwilling to re-evaluate potentially incorrect opinions. And if you are that strident, dedicated, and bullheaded in your refusal to re-evaluate potentially incorrect opinions, then I hope I'm a thousand miles away and deep underground when your cognitive dissonance reaches critical mass...

[Condorman]

I can also cut-and-paste...

Pasteur: Proved only the non-spontaneous generation of fully formed cells.

Smallest living cell, 1 million base pair example: Based on fully formed cells.

Chicken and egg "problem": concerns fully formed cells.

Evasion, avoidance, (deliberate?) misunderstanding.

So fire up those neurons, here we go again: What evidence do you have that insists that life must have jumped from zero to fully formed cell in a single step?

[Condorman]

forsnax5: NOBODY denies that gravity is a fact.

Your evolutionist friends certainly do, that is the reason for the response.

Physicist merely asked you for evidence that the moon's orbit was maintained by the same force that makes apples fall to the ground. You have yet to produce such.

[Condorman]

You might give some thought to post #1372 while you're at it.

[Condorman]

...moon's orbit IS maintained...

[BMCDA]

No. those are what YOU think are facts. They can not be empirically reproduced scientifically, so SCIENTICALLY, it is thus only a THEORY. Unless you can scientifically, empirically reproduce what you conjecture, then it's NOT FACT, IT'S THEORY. That's why it's called the "Theory of Evolution", not the "Fact of Evolution".

And reading this drivel I'm even more opposed to such a disclaimer in biology books but I suggest to put a page in every science textbook on which the correct scientific definition of theory, hypothesis, fact, law and model is given.
It seems that most people who favor this "discaimer" are stuck with the vernacular meaning of the terms "theory" and "fact".

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post! Indeed, much of the scientific progress over these many years was made under the axiom of Creation.

I was trying to support such a view by illustrating how the scientists' argument that "saying 'God did it' will bring scientific research to a halt" is specious.

To make the point, I observed that scientists tend to bucket bizarre observations under the anthropic principle - bringing research to a halt on their own, just shy of saying God did it. There is no substantive difference in my view.

The Intelligent Design movement wouldn't stop research, it would encourage new research - particularly with regard to information theory and mathematics.

[webber]

Despite the claims of evolutionists to the contrary, all the "species" we have enumerated above are nothing but genuine human beings. Let us first examine Homo erectus , who evolutionists refer to as the most primitive human species.

The most striking evidence showing that Homo erectus is not a "primitive" species is the fossil of "Turkana Boy", one of the oldest Homo erectus remains. It is estimated that the fossil was of a 12-year-old boy, who would have been 1.83 meters tall in his adolescence. The upright skeletal structure of the fossil is no different from that of modern man. Its tall and slender skeletal structure totally complies with that of the people living in tropical regions in our day. This fossil is one of the most important pieces of evidence that Homo erectus is simply another specimen of the modern human race. Evolutionist paleontologist Richard Leakey compares Homo erectus and modern man as follows:

One would also see differences in the shape of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time.(9)

Leakey means to say that the difference between Homo erectus and us is no more than the difference between Negroes and Eskimos. The cranial features of Homo erectus resulted from their manner of feeding, and genetic emigration and from their not assimilating with other human races for a lengthy period.

Another strong piece of evidence that Homo erectus is not a "primitive" species is that fossils of this species have been unearthed aged twenty-seven thousand years and even thirteen thousand years. According to an article published in Time ? which is not a scientific periodical, but nevertheless had a sweeping effect on the world of science ? Homo erectus fossils aged twenty-seven thousand years were found on the island of Java. In the Kow swamp in Australia, some thirteen thousand year-old fossils were found that bore Homo Sapiens- Homo erectus characteristics. All these fossils demonstrate that Homo erectus continued living up to times very close to our day and were nothing but a human race that has since been buried in history.

[webber]

Don't take my definition of what "Theory" and "fact" are. Let's see what the Dictionary says of both of them...shall we?

taken from Websters Dictionary & Thesaurus - Deluxe Edition.

THEORY: Doctrine, guess, presupposition, postulate, assumption, speculation.

FACT: Something that actually occurred or exists; something that has real and demonstrable existence; actuality.

I rest my case.

[webber]

This is NOT my first argument against Darwin. I was just saying that Darwin renounced everything he believed in about evolution, that all. What's the problem?

[Doctor Stochastic]

I have seen Pompeii. Those are not fossils.

Fossils generally come from the replacement of soft tissue by minerals dissolved in water. The harder tissue gives structure. At least that is for vegetable fossils.

Here is a short discussion.

It may be possible to accelerate fossilization a laboratory. Maybe one could cook a pear in a bath of water-glass or someting similar.