Posted on 02/12/2009 9:00:33 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Most Darwinists involved in the public debate today have one, and only one goal: To stifle free debate on this subject and thereby discourage you, the public, from scrutinizing the scientific evidence for yourself.
Over the years, Darwinists have evolved a variety of strategies to accomplish these goals. We see each of these strategies in play in the op-eds and comments by Darwinists in this present forum on U.S. News and World Report. I'll discuss how my opponents on this forum use the strategies of (1) Ridicule, Demonization, and Character Assassination; (2) Equating Darwin-Skeptics with Religion; (3) Persecute Darwin-Skeptics; and (4) Pretend There Is No Scientific Controversy Over Evolution in order to try to dissuade you, the reader, from thinking for yourself on this subject.
Strategy 1
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
Final Darwin Bicentennial Expose Ping of the Evening!
Good night :o)
That pretty much says it all.
Good night. As to arguing with evolutionists, it is silly. My daddy used to say, never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
That said, evolutionists NEED to have their THEORY prevail in order to remove God from the world. I don’t care where I came from, only where I am going. You get nowhere fast by looking backwards......
I agree cats and tigers obviously aren’t related at all. Sickle cell anemia an evolutionary trait? Bah probably God’s punishment on blacks.
Parrots and hawks related? Pshhh how ridiculous. Try God made them individually just because.
Good article. Thanks for posting.
I’m amazed that this made its way into US News and World Report.
We’ve certainly spent enough years and dollars trying to prove evolution. It has been biased science. People set out to prove TOE, not test it, much less disprove it. But the immense effort has not borne fruit. I don’t think Darwin, or Gould, had the answer.
I don’t think that intelligent design has been proven either. But then it hasn’t been resourced as evolution and evolution indoctrination have been resourced.
It’s time to get over “the debate is over” and welcome all views into the discussion.
I don’t ridicule creationists. Rather, I think they should suffer the consequences of their beliefs.
No Genetically modified food, no vaccinations. No modern breeds of horses or other cattle.
My latest invention Emo-Grass is also denied them.
Darwin himself was a believer in Intelligent Design, a religious man and a member of the Church of England, he believed that before evolution, there was creation.
I also heard he said (but correct me if I am wrong) that if anything ever contradicted his theory, if something did not go as expected, then the theory should be dropped and he would concede the whole thing was incorrect.
I don’t follow darwinism, so I will stand corrected if wrong, but the above paraphrased sentiment sticks in my head.
Thanks for the ping!
I guess it just bugs me that we can't simply leave it there. To pretend we have all the answers is to rob our children of their natural ambition to solve the vexing problems that have bedeviled their parents. Besides, by the time they figure out that all "answers" yield is more questions, we'll have them hooked on the process of inquiry for good. :-)
The Free Republic liberals worship at the same feet as the Democrat Party leaders. They are all hardcore evolutionists who have to lie about their innermost motivations.
My wife forced me to go to the Florida State fair last weekend. If anyone needed any proof that Darwin was dead wrong, it was on display at this event. Those members of the species least likely to survive not only do, but thrive in multiples.
I just read the article and all 27 comments, which generally prove the author’s point.
Read "Ön the Origin of Species." It won't shake your faith. Evolution just happens to be a darn good scientific theory, which merely means an hypothesis backed by evidence. Where, or how, evolution might have begun, or who began it, simply are not questions science can answer.
The notion that our omnipotent God could not have used some sort of evolutionary mechanism in creating life as we know it is self-defeating.
In Darwinian terms, you were observing mutations, at least some of which may adapt the species to better survive in a country run by Democrats.
He did make that comment, perhaps more than once. I read the Origin of the Species a few years ago, and forget what he was referring to - perhaps organs without a purpose.
I do recall that he stacked the deck on that particular subject. It went something like this. If an organ does not seem to have a purpose, it probably does - just think harder. If it still not not seem to have a purpose - assume that it had a purpose in the past, perhaps a time long ago that we cannot investigate. He did his best to instill a prejudice for the belief in evolution.
He was a smart man who spent about ten years writing his book. He was playing from a weak hand, with great determination. Fortunately for him, people wanted to buy what he had to sell. They still do!
He mentions several things which would be “fatal to the theory”. The one I remember is this:
“If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.” - Chapter 10 - On The Imperfection Of The Geological Record
another one is:
“The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest lately made by some naturalists against the utilitarian doctrine that every detail of structure has been produced for the good of its possessor. They believe that many structures have been created for the sake of beauty, to delight man or the Creator (but this latter point is beyond the scope of scientific discussion), or for the sake of mere variety, a view already discussed. Such doctrines, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory.” - Chapter 6 - Difficulties Of The Theory
Then in Chapter 8 - Instinct:
“I will not here enter on these several cases, but will confine myself to one special difficulty, which at first appeared to me insuperable, and actually fatal to the whole theory.”
Oooh! What could that be?
Yep..God help us :-)
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.