DARWIN IS DEAD (Leave Him in the Grave)

EducationNews.Org ^ | 01/26/2009 | Karl Priest

[ElectricStrawberry]

Peer review from the SCIENTIFIC perspective from actual scientists.....the Theory will allow....MUST allow.

....but I DO love it every time a creaationist tries to weave a tangled web.

[ElectricStrawberry]

In case you missed it, it’s a scientific theory. Use the scientific method to counter the theory, not a mathematical calculation of possible probabilities.

[Boxen]

"In my state, West VirginiaUniversity has already placed a newspaper add listing events WVU will use to honor Darwin.Revealing consummate hypocrisy is the fact that WVU evolutionist professors are exposed as Debate Dodgers at http://www.lifescienceprize.org/."

Funny. A "Debate Dodger" is anyone who refuses to participate in his silly little contest. He goes on to conclude that this is proof that the ToE is dead. I found this statement rather telling:

A remaining next step is litigation to replace the evolution scourge from the public schools with the secular truth of devolution, the exact opposite and excluder of evolution.

[don'tbedenied]

The only devolution going on is among the posters on this board. Creationist=Cretinous.

Cretins

[Coyoteman]

A lot of oft-refuted creationist talking points all rolled into one insipid article.

Too silly and too anti-science for anything but a blanket rebuttal: Index of Creationist Claims.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

It sure doesn't take long for the atheistic darwinists to start foaming at the mouth! Truth and facts to these guys are like Light to the wicked.

[Paradox]

Thank God the bible never made mention of some kind of atomic, electrical, or chemical theory. We might still be living in the dark ages..

[Boxen]

Do you have anything to contribute to article aside from your useless, baseless rhetoric?

[Coyoteman]

Also, "from trillions of observations by billions of observers for thousands of years, all life forms are fixed…" (pg. 20)In other words, evolution is the exact opposite of reality.

All life forms are not "fixed" as this article claims. That life forms change was noted decades ago. The theory of evolution was devised to explain those changes. The article is lying--hoping to fool the gullible--when it claims all life forms are fixed.

Here is an example of that change:

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

[Sopater]

All life forms are not "fixed" as this article claims. That life forms change was noted decades ago. The theory of evolution was devised to explain those changes.

Granted, life forms change and are certainly not fixed. However, there have never been any changes observed where one kind of life form became another kind. The theory of evolution wasn't devised to explain "changes", it was devised to explain observable differences. You, sir, are hoping to fool the gullible. Your example is an excellent example of how evolution is used to devise an explanation of the differences between these fossils without actually seeing any of these changes take place.

[tpanther]

“unasssailable”?

It sounds like the cult is surrounded by a moat, and the drawbridge only gets lowered to the like-minded.

[BJClinton]

GRADE LEVEL: 7-8th Grade Mathematics

No reason for a serious reply so

[js1138]

I’m guessing you polled a good number of mathematicians to obtain this conclusion?

They probably polled Bill Debmski.

[varmintman]

Yes.

[EveningStar]

[JRios1968]

[JRios1968]

LOLz, that’z teh funnay!

[tacticalogic]

It sounds like the cult is surrounded by a moat, and the drawbridge only gets lowered to the like-minded.

It does have a ring of hyperbole to it.

I think these arguments should be limited to only what can be objectively demonstrated. How about you?

[dmz]

It sure doesn’t take long for the atheistic darwinists to start foaming at the mouth! Truth and facts to these guys are like Light to the wicked.
______

What you say is, of course, equally true of the other side of this equation. A scientific article discussing evolution draws the creationist/id camp mouth foamers every bit as rapidly as the other way around.

But more fundamentally, I was wondering if you could point out the specific truth and facts from the accompanying article. I saw a lot of opining, but little in the way of facts and truth. Your help is discerning them will be invaluable.