Refuting Darwinism, point by point

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

[f.Christian]

Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc-religion/rhetoric)...

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin America---the post-modern evo fascist expert age . . .

To: f.Christian

Now I follow, thank you. Actually, I don't disagree with this at all since I see the left as abandoning the uncertianty of democracy and majority rule for the assurance technocracy and expert rule.

152 posted on 9/10/02 12:17 PM Pacific by Liberal Classic

[PatrickHenry]

Never criticize one of your fellow creationists in front of evolutionists even if you know that his claims are false.

It may look that way, but I don't think they play such a well-coordinated game. Probably the truth of the matter is that most creationists have never figured out how to determine if a claim is false. They just cling to their talking points. With increasing desperation.

[f.Christian]

Main Entry: tech·noc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: tek-'nä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Date: circa 1919
: government by technicians; specifically : management of society by technical experts

[Condorman]

Heheh... now where have I seen that tactic before...?

[f.Christian]

"A New World Order emerges on the basis of heroic will (( evolution ))."

"It is not hard to see how appetizing this . . . stew (( link )) - - - was for Hitler."

[AndrewC]

From the mussel link--

Another major barrier in bacteria lies in the structure of the gene encoding the adhesive protein. This is a long and extremely repetitive piece of DNA, and bacteria, correctly, recognise it as foreign and rapidly eliminate it through a process known as recombination.

[Doctor Stochastic]

In physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, also known as the law of entropy, is clear that all complex systems are in a continual process of being reduced to less complexity.

The second law says no such thing. You really should learn some elementary thermodynamics to avoid making such mistakes.

[BMCDA]

It may look that way, but I don't think they play such a well-coordinated game.

This doesn't have to be coordinated. If you're up for a holy cause you simply don't criticize your brother in arms in front of all those infidels since they're doing this already enough. So it's no problem if your fellow creationist is wrong about some issue (even from your point of view) - no, the problem is that the evolutionist might be right and this impression has to be avoided at any cost.

But of course it may also be that some creationists haven't figured out how to determine if a claim is false as you said.

[Dimensio]

Nice post. Liked your typical 'dishonest evolutionist' tactic of actually trying to discuss the real theory of evolution rather than some creationist strawman version. You evolutionists will never have any credibility if you insist upon sticking with 'facts' and 'truth'.

[gore3000]

This one of those "you really have to be a believer already" type of arguments.

Vade Retro hurling ad-hominems instead of discussing the issues - what else is new?

[gore3000]

or even one on biology rather than relying on what they heard from some guy on the state of the science in these fields.

You certainly should do that and you would see that evolution is impossible.

[gore3000]

And he wants this book to be used in the schools, or at least to be used by teachers as a blind text? Note that this simple minded fundie does not for a minute believe that he was wrong to infer atheism from evolution. Quite the contrary. In fact the opening section of his book makes a point of justifying that inference. Therefore, at least in the effect on those unpersuaded by his creationist psuedoscience, Perloff is teaching atheism!

What a convoluted argument you make in order to attack this author! You cannot deny his statements (like the rest of the evolutionists) so you contrive a totally phony attack on the man. How lame!

[gore3000]

Expanding on my previous post.) This is what I'm talking about. There are only two sides to this idiot. Evolution -- which equals atheism, communism, facism, sex with animals, etc -- and Creationism -- which equals theism, apple pie and dimples on smiling children.

Expanding on the ad-hominems by building a straw man. You cannot refute his statements so you attack the man - WITH PHONY ARGUMENTS.

[gore3000]

You Establishment Religion Darwinites can explain how an egg physico-chemically develops into a mature organism!-metacognitive-

This has nothing to do with evolution, so I don't know why you bring it up.

Biology has nothing to do with evolution? Really? Shows to what absurd lengths the fools of evolution go to discredit opponents. Seems to me that evolution needs to explain how such a complex reproductive function arose by chance (but of course they cannot).

[Dimensio]

""You Establishment Religion Darwinites can explain how an egg physico-chemically develops into a mature organism!-metacognitive-""

"This has nothing to do with evolution, so I don't know why you bring it up."

Biology has nothing to do with evolution?

No, development of an organism starting from a fertilized egg has nothing to do with evolution. It should be incredibly clear from the contet what I was implying, so I can't tell if you're just incredibly ignorant or incredibly dishonest.

[gore3000]

What are you saying about the process of development? Are you suggesting that divine interventions are involved?

At least for the creation of the process of development, it certainly did require divine intervention. Developmental scientists call the process by which a single cell turns into a 100 trillion cell organism with all the cells of the right kind and in the right place a program. Programs are not subject to random stochastic alteration.

In addition, how do you explain how a species can change its mode of reprodutction while continuing to reproduce? How did reptiles (supposedly) change from egg laying to live bearing while continuing to reproduce?????????

[Dimensio]

You cannot deny his statements

The statement that evolution implies atheism is already so obviously false as to not be worth denying. Any 'author' who tries to use it as an arguing point has already destroyed their credibility.

[gore3000]

"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." -article-

The article brings up God first.

Yup, but you attack the messenger instead of trying to disprove the message. The message is true. Darwin was an atheist. Most of his friends were atheists, and just about all the famous Darwinists have been atheists. So yes, you can bet that evolution is atheistic.

[gore3000]

Yes, the gaps that remain are what's left after several large gaps have been plugged.

Total garbage. The problem of the Cambrian explosion where over 40 new phyla (the highest order of classification next to kingdom) arose suddenly, without antecedents in less than 5 million years remains a completely unexplainable. Darwin himself admitted that if the antecedents were not found his theory would be false. Gould split with Darwinism because he saw that due to the lack of of ancestors for these numerous phyla, Darwinism had been disproven.

[gore3000]

Hey Patrick, when are you ever going to say something regarding the issues instead of insulting opponents?