Refuting Darwinism, point by point

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

[Fester Chugabrew]

". . .and even tries to say if this is here, then we are missing something here, and that missing something is found, . . ."

That "missing something" is the mechanism that drives all the changes evolution purports to observe. No scientist has ever explained it to my satisfaction, let alone observed it in action and recorded it for the rest of us to see. Until they do I will not blindly assume certain ancient writings must be dismissed as pure fiction.

And if you think I am in the same boat as those who believe "creationism is science" you are mistaken.

I see the "strawman" theme has come about again. "Swiss Cheese and Strawmen." Yes. that would be a fine tune for the swamp toads to work on. Repeat as needed. Oh, wait. I stand corrected per jokester. That's "swamp frogs."

[MEGoody]

"As long as nuts go to Bagdad as "Human" shields Darwinism will be a good theory"

LOL!

[MEGoody]

"What did you have in mind?"

Ah, so now you want to hedge. . .

[Aric2000]

some say pokes holes in the theory of evolution

I would LOVE to see these scientifically verifiable facts, because I guarantee that they do NOT poke holes in the theory of evolution. Otherwise there would be NO Theory of Evolution. If there were facts that poked holes in evolution, science would either A: change the theory to fit into these new facts, or B: Toss out the old theory and start from scratch. Since Evolution is still a scientific theory, your facts are either A: accounted for within the theory, or B: scientifically unverifiable.

And PLEASE, no flagellum or irreducibly complex stuff either please, because that ID stuff is WAY old and NOT scientifically verified, NOR verifiable. That is why it is religious and not science.

But, please, feel free to give it your best shot, we'd ALL love to hear it.

[general_re]

Close ;)

Q: How many C++ programmers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: You're still thinking procedurally! A properly designed light bulb object would inherit a change method from a generic light bulb class!

[general_re]

Ah, so now you want to hedge. . .

Asking you to lay your cards on the table is "hedging"? Suppose I asked to present evidence in schools that would tend to refute the theory that the Founding Fathers were from Earth. Would you be "hedging" if you asked to see my evidence before allowing me to jump right into the history classes with it?

[usastandsunited]

The .1% is made up of guys who knowingly lie to make money on their books and videos from the uneducated flock.

Are you so deceived and confused that you think anyone that says they believe God created humans is either is a greedy liar or stupid ?

[beavus]

I reject the premise that science requires either facts or evidence.

The examples you gave depend a great deal on evidence. Without the evidence of the senses, not even the questions could be formulated. What you are saying is that no new evidence is used in those descriptions, just an analysis of existing evidence--a new look at existing concepts.

Science IS the use of reason to interpret the evidence of our senses. Even the science of logic or mathematics uses evidence--introspective evidence. Even scientific speculation (theorizing about what might be real) must be consistent with reason and evidence.

Bad science occurs with faulty reasoning or a conceptual break with the observed. Often this is in the form of claiming as real that which has neither been rationally deduced nor observed.

[usastandsunited]

A properly designed light bulb object would inherit a change method from a generic light bulb class!

Perfect analysis. That what the creationists have been saying all along.

[beavus]

How many C++ programmers does it take to change a light bulb?

Three. One to write the filament method and one to encapsulate in the bulb class. The third is to rewrite the whole damn thing using templates.

[general_re]

That what the creationists have been saying all along.

The Stroustroup will be pleased that you recognize His handiwork. Hail Bjarne!

:^)

[general_re]

Q. How many Creationists does it take to change a light bulb?
A. Two. One to change it very quickly and the other to point out that no transitional forms were observed.

[DWar]

Placemarker

[beavus]

Q. How many Creationists does it take to change a light bulb?
A. Two. One to change it very quickly and the other to point out that no transitional forms were observed.

Shouldn't there be a third to jump up and down yelling "We win! We win!"

[Aric2000]

Placemarker for me.

Waiting for MEgoody's scientifically verifiable facts that dispute evolution.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker (might as well, everyone else is).

[Phaedrus]

Oh, balrog, you are such a waste of my time. Kindly go play in the street.

[gore3000]

We indeed can comprehend (quite well!) that the Sistine Chapel ceiling did not come about by a bunch of paint cans falling up.-me-

By contrary to our observations, I was referring to such notions as consciousness without a brain, vision without sense organs, actuation without matter or energy, and existence in a "universe" devoid of space and time.

Neither I nor Christianity says that man is part body and part spirit. That there is nothing but matter though is easily refuted - consciousness, conscience, intelligence, logic, mathematics, love have no material existence.

[gore3000]

Certainly nothing has yet been presented to demonstrate the impossibility of any evolutionary theories.

Clearly you have not been reading the thread, or wish to ignore the facts. I certainly have shown that mammalian live bearing could not have descended from reptilian egg-laying so evolution has to be false since this shows it to be impossible.

This is a step above complete denial of science.

It is not religious people who are denying science. Science has flourished under Christianity (and not under any other form of belief). It is the atheist/materialist/evolutionists which deny science by claiming that matter organizes itself by random means. All the scientific laws disprove this, without specific cause and effect there is no science and evolutionists deny this.

There have been insults.

There sure have been, lots of them from your fellow evolutionist Dan Day whose every other sentence is an insult. You should be addressing this to him.

[balrog666]

Oh, balrog, you are such a waste of my time. Kindly go play in the street.

You, on the other hand, are a waste of everybody's time. I'd say the same about the street to you, but I suspect you are too old and mentally fossilized to find it.