Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?
From Sea to Shining Sea ^ | 1/4/09 | Purple Mountains

Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains

All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets.

(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Science
KEYWORDS: allyourblog; darwin; expelled; pimpmyblog; rousseau
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 1,821-1,826 next last
To: drrexdexter
Here’s a “nifty” question for Evolutionists...With every “Leap Forward” on the Evolutionary ladder, the arising Life Form needed a more complex Protein and Nutritional chain in order to survive, let alone thrive. Since this would involve the “fine-tuning” of the entire environment, how we accept that this PRE-EVOLUTION EVOLVING could transpire successfully thousands of times su the ecosystem would be ready to support the newly arisen form?

Actually your question revolves around an incorrect assumption. At each "leap forward" all that was needed was a different adaptation.

With the normal range of variation, supplemented by mutations, at each generation there are thousands to billions (depending on the species) of "experiments" at adaptation. Of those, the failures are removed. Each succeeding generation, then, is descended from the successful adaptations. This powerful feedback mechanism works quite well unless the failures become to great (with rapidly changing environmental conditions, for example), then you get extinction and an open niche for some other more successful species to expand into.

141 posted on 01/04/2009 10:03:58 AM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: FixedandDilated

I was told the same thing, and then I wondered how Satan got the power to be the Creator and even make whole new galaxies and stars that we can see even though they’re WAY more than 6,000 light years away.

And if Satan has the power to create fossils that date with radiometric dating back millions of years, then nothing we see can be verified.

Satan could have written the Bible if that line of logic is pursued.


142 posted on 01/04/2009 10:05:30 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Those that died.


143 posted on 01/04/2009 10:06:12 AM PST by DevNet (!dimensio || !solitron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Jaime2099
"I know exactly what “faith” and “science” mean and human evolution is unprovable and cannot be tested. If something is unprovable and untestable then it is not science. It is a belief, faith.

Evolution is faith, not science. Many scientists, by faith, believe that man evolved and was not created in current human form. This has never been proven, this has never been tested, yet somehow it’s science. Human evolution is not science, it’s an incorrect and false religion."

Sorry pal, but you have NO CLUE what you're talking about. You're just jabbering -- slapping words together that sound good TO YOU. They have no meaning outside your own mind.

The theory of evolution is as scientific as any other theory. It can be proved or disproved scientifically, but it cannot be overthrown by a RELIGIOUS assertion such as "creationism."

144 posted on 01/04/2009 10:11:34 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: bray

Are dog and wolves the same species? How about tigers and lions?

Australopithecus and neanderthal?


145 posted on 01/04/2009 10:12:09 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: bray

Are dog and wolves the same species? How about tigers and lions?

Australopithecus and neanderthal?


146 posted on 01/04/2009 10:12:10 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Jaime2099
"Carbon dating LOL, say hi to the tooth fairy for me. That is not science either, pure garbage. The rate of decay is unpredictable, no one knows how old the earth is. Fantasy of fantasies is carbon dating. "

Oh for crying out loud!

Carbon 14 dating is good for about 60,000 years. Beyond that other methods of dating have to be used, including the radioactive decay rates of isotopes of uranium.

Look, it's 100% clear that you hate, despise, loathe and detest the very idea of science. You are therefore 100% DISQUALIFIED from defining what IS and IS NOT science.

Crawl back in your cave.

147 posted on 01/04/2009 10:18:33 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Your abject ignorance is showing. Carbon dating has an upper limit of about 50,000 years. It is not used to date fossils or the age of the earth. Why don't you actually learn some science before you go trashing it? You only make yourself look silly with these posts that are so laughably wrong.

I admit I used carbon dating as a catch all term, but it changes nothing. Dating ancient, earth materials isn't an accurate science, so I'm not trashing accurate science when I speak of it. It is not possible to date ancient earth or fossils accurately at this time. There are too many variables that we do not understand. Most, if not all, ancient earth dating is questionable at best. Especially in time periods over thousands of years. Saying the earth is whatever billion years old is a mockery of accurate science. We simply do not know and to say otherwise is faith.
148 posted on 01/04/2009 10:22:30 AM PST by Jaime2099
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: bray
"We creationists understand that we believe it by faith. Evolutionists pretend that they are not doing the same thing. They have no transitionary fossils or concrete proof and need faith to fill in the gaps. It is the religion of Darwinism/science."

You despise science.
You have no idea what science is.
You are TOTALLY DISQUALIFIED from passing judgment on what is or is not science.

The theory of evolution is as scientific as any other theory, regardless of your pretenses.

149 posted on 01/04/2009 10:23:53 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Jaime2099

What is accurate science?


150 posted on 01/04/2009 10:28:14 AM PST by DevNet (!dimensio || !solitron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Please cite me a single “scientific” experiment that has been used to prove (or disprove) the theory of human evolution.


151 posted on 01/04/2009 10:30:57 AM PST by Alberta's Child (I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Jaime2099
Dating ancient, earth materials isn't an accurate science, so I'm not trashing accurate science when I speak of it. It is not possible to date ancient earth or fossils accurately at this time. There are too many variables that we do not understand. Most, if not all, ancient earth dating is questionable at best. Especially in time periods over thousands of years. Saying the earth is whatever billion years old is a mockery of accurate science. We simply do not know and to say otherwise is faith.

Why is it that scientists have no problems with these dating methods, knowing all of the assumptions and qualifications that are a part of each particular method?

Why is it only young earth creationists who can't accept the dates and the methods that are used? The answer is clear: it is for reasons based on religious belief, not on the scientific merits or potential pitfalls in any specific dating method.

But if you have any legitimate questions on carbon 14 dating let me know. I use that method of dating a lot, and have both written and lectured on it. I would be glad to help you understand it if you have real questions.

152 posted on 01/04/2009 10:31:25 AM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Sorry pal, but you have NO CLUE what you're talking about. You're just jabbering -- slapping words together that sound good TO YOU. They have no meaning outside your own mind. The theory of evolution is as scientific as any other theory. It can be proved or disproved scientifically, but it cannot be overthrown by a RELIGIOUS assertion such as "creationism."

I'm jabbering? Human evolution cannot be proved. People who believe in it are members of the religion of evolution whoes foundation is built on faith.
153 posted on 01/04/2009 10:34:54 AM PST by Jaime2099
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Your use of the word single makes that impossible.


154 posted on 01/04/2009 10:34:55 AM PST by DevNet (!dimensio || !solitron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: SisterK
Good post, SisterK.

Now let's take the example of symbiosis you've provided, and see how it works when dealing with more than two animal and plant species. The unique relationship between ants, grass, grazing animals and the liverfluke is a perfect case in point.

155 posted on 01/04/2009 10:35:28 AM PST by Alberta's Child (I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Look, it's 100% clear that you hate, despise, loathe and detest the very idea of science. You are therefore 100% DISQUALIFIED from defining what IS and IS NOT science. Crawl back in your cave.

I never said I hated science, I hate false, bull poo science like human evolution and ancient, earth material dating which are full of holes and wishful thinking. I'm more qualified to say what science is than most scientists who blatantly forgive human evolutions ridiculous theories just so they have something other than creationism.
156 posted on 01/04/2009 10:52:00 AM PST by Jaime2099
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
"Creationism has remained static for 2000 years."

Now just a dadgumed moment. I thought Creationism was a conspiracy invented in the '50s to circumvent various Supreme Court decisions prohibiting school prayer and the teaching of Christianity in the public schools.

Now you're telling me that Creationism has existed for as long a 6,000 years?

Which is it? Sixty or 6,000?

157 posted on 01/04/2009 10:53:15 AM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: gwilhelm56

“What would you expect from HYPOCRITES ... They PREACH the GOSPEL according to DARWIN, and then they create Government WELFARE Programs designed to THWART DARWINISM at Every turn.”

You guys are Hitlerious!

There is so much to work with on this post...

Say what you will about evolution, but the Taliban wing of Free Republic certainly has evolved, although it is the level of hysteria that is increasing - not a positive evolutionary trait on it’s own. The only evolutionary advantage it offers is when it results in everyone who disagrees with the Taliban wing being removed from the gene pool. However, geographically, this sort of advantage is only conferred in habitats whose names end in “-stan”.

Men of science and faith can discuss this subject without such histrionics as comparative Hitlerianism, and equating theoretical scientific hypothesis, through some sort of perverted syllogy, to Eugenics using Gospel to grease the treads.

There is science and there is faith - don’t expect one to always reinforce the other - in fact, keep them separate for a happier life.


158 posted on 01/04/2009 10:57:34 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

“Why is it that scientists have no problems with these dating methods, knowing all of the assumptions and qualifications that are a part of each particular method?”

They believe it because it was peer reviewed, simple as that.

The whole point to my posts is simply to show that human evolution is nothing more than faith, the exact same thing scientist accuse creationists of believing.


159 posted on 01/04/2009 11:00:04 AM PST by Jaime2099
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: PurpleMountains

Can the bible be more accurate than some give it credit for? Is it entirely metaphorical or is our understanding limited because our science is incomplete?

__________________________

Genesis 2

But for Adam [g] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs [h] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [i] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman, [j] ‘
for she was taken out of man.”

_______________________________________________

Sperm Cells Created From Human Bone Marrow

For the experiment, Prof Nayernia and his team took bone marrow from male volunteers and isolated the mesenchymal stem cells. These cells have previously been found to grow into other body tissues such as muscle.

They cultured these cells in the laboratory and coaxed them into becoming male reproductive cells, which are scientifically known as ‘germ cells’. Genetic markers showed the presence of partly-developed sperm cells called spermatagonial stem cells, which are an early phase of the male germ cell development. In most men, spermatagonial cells eventually develop into mature, functional sperm but this progression was not achieved in this experiment.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070412211409.htm


160 posted on 01/04/2009 11:06:16 AM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 1,821-1,826 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson