[DWar]

Non-Technical synopsis of the position against Darwinism.

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[jlogajan]

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. ...

Anatomical similarities between men and animals are said to prove common ancestry. But intelligent design also results in innumerable similarities, as in the case of two makes of automobile.

Ha ha, he slipped up. ID'ers are supposed to pretend that ID doesn't presuppose a God, or some numbnuts thing like that.

But here the matter is out in the open -- they hate the theory of evolution because then God isn't so important.

That pretty much explains the rest of their "science" on the issue.

[AlaskaErik]

As the old saying goes, "You keep on believing, We'll keep on evolving".

[John H K]

Looks Cliff Notes for the profoundly retarded, consisting of all the same tired old creationist arguments.

World Net Daily continues to get more and more embarrassingly bad.

Anyway, as usual, if you need an antidote, as always, try:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

[LiteKeeper]

YEC read later

[ContentiousObjector]

Flat Earth Society Bump!

[B.Bumbleberry]

One of the best books I've ever read on evolution is "Anti-Evolution: An Annotated Bibliography" by Tom McIver. It becomes apparent that these same anti-evolution arguments, and a lot of others besides, really are old, going back in some instances over a 100 years. I guess there's nothing wrong with making a little off some new books sold to people who never read the earlier ones.

[fabian]

It's important for mind controlers to create a doubt about God in young people. That way there's a larger customer base for the liberal social programs they will need after falling away from their brightness and independence.

[Voice in your head]

I've been a lurker for a while, but this finally motivated me to post. I don't mind when someone who knows nothing of a topic chooses to engage in a discussion about that given topic - that is one way that we learn. However, when frauds pretend to know what they're talking about, it grows very tiresome.

“First, it's taught as ‘scientific fact.’”

Oh really? I just graduated with a degree in biology and this was never taught as “scientific fact”. It was taught as theory – an evolving theory (no pun intended). It was also taught as theory when I was in high school, where we learned about the competing views of the origins of life, which included evolution, creationism, and views held by others, such as Lamarck.

“mutations… never create higher, more complex information – even in the rare cases of beneficial mutations, such as bacterial resistance to antibiotics.”

Then how does he define “higher”?

“cells are now known to be far too complex to have originated by some chance concurrence of chemicals, as Darwin hypothesized and is still being claimed.”

Who makes that claim?

“But we don't see transitionals between them. If these creatures ever existed, why did none survive? It is too easy to explain it away by saying they all became extinct.”

So is “too easy to explain” another way of saying, “makes too much sense to argue against?”

“Why aren't these creatures evolving into each other today? Why aren't invertebrates evolving into fish today? Why aren't fish growing little legs and so forth?”

Evolution is believed to take several generations, depending on how drastic the change. My question is, “how would we notice such a drastic change, of one species ‘evolving into’ another?” Minor changes take place over a long time, as is currently theorized. Major changes take place over a longer period of time.

“And while there are billions of fossils of both invertebrates and fish, fossils linking them are missing.”

What percentage of organisms from a particular species that were alive are actually found in the fossil record? Would it be reasonable to expect that the so-called “transitional” creatures did not have such a large population, and thus they are less likely to be found, if ever?

“Dr. Michael Denton, the Australian molecular biologist, examined these creatures on a molecular level and found no evidence whatsoever for the fish-amphibian-reptile-mammal sequence.”

Try phylogenic trees.

For this guy to pretend to intelligently discuss this issue reminds me of Hollywood stars pretending to intelligently discuss politics, the New England Journal of Medicine pretending to intelligently discuss gun control, and non-Muslims pretending to intelligently discuss Islam. There is nothing wrong with attempting to discuss an issue that is well outside one’s area of expertise. However, to pretend to have an understanding of an issue that one is woefully ignorant of necessarily lowers the level of intelligent discourse.

[I got the rope]

But of course...

[Alex Murphy]

Bump for later

[Stultis]

Q: You, yourself, were an atheist for many years, were you not, as a result of evolutionary teaching?

A: That's right. I thought evolution had discredited the Bible. In my books, I give examples of notables who became atheists from being taught evolution, such as Stalin and Carnegie. In fact, the atheist Boy Scout who's been in the news reportedly attributes his atheism to being taught evolution.

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!

[Stultis]

The truth is, we need to hear both sides, and kids haven't been getting it on the subject of origins.

(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.

Leaving aside only the matter of which "side" he prefers, Perloff is in complete philosophical agreement here with the most extreme and dogmatic class of scientific atheist about the nature of the controversy and the supposed dilemma it presents.

Teaching the so-called "orgins controversy" (ignoring for the moment that this whole take on the matter is a forced and grotesque contrivance) in Perloff's manner will please a small minority of fundamentalists, and an even smaller minority of atheists, but it is inherently offensive to, and arrogantly dismissive of, the beliefs of the majority of Americans who think that science and religion are compatible.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

So how many points did Michael Jordan get??

[steve-b]

Time to start a pool on when World Nut Daily runs its first article touting perpetual motion machines, penis growth pills, and other forms of nonsense at the same level as this article.

[k2blader]

Bump for later read.

[Dataman]

Unfortunately, you could prove to the FR evolutionists that the earth is round, show them the satelite photos, take them for a spin around the planet and they'd still say,

"Been there, done that, refuted it several times, where's your evidence?"

The public schools no longer teach logic nor do state collges introduce the subject in philosophy. We're dealing with underdeveloped minds incapable of drawing a conclusion from details. Rather they force details to conform to their conclusion.

[DBtoo]

I don't see why a person who believes in Darwinism is automatically an atheist. That's not quite fair or right.

[Servant of the Nine]

If there is a God with the power, will and knowledge to create life as we know it on Earth, then he had the power, will and knowledge to do a much better job than he did, and either didn't care, or acted maliciously.

Is that a God or a Demon?

So9

[drewliberty]

This is HIGHLY misleading. There are several theories on evolution and this hardly addresses even the main argument. The gene for 6 six fingers is a dominant gene. Over time more and more people will have six fingers if it proves to be an advantage.


There are other approaches but the arguments this book makes are not really new. Interesting, but not conclusive.