It starts with craterism ...
From there, it "progresses" to evolutionism ...
By then the children will accept anything. This menace must end. It must end now!
Posted on 11/19/2003 10:15:28 AM PST by yonif
Medical student John David Johannessen and the leader of the Christian Medical Students Circle have petitioned the medical faculty at the University of Oslo for lectures "that not only argue the cause for evolution, but also the evidence against", student newspaper Universitas reports.
"The theory of evolution doesn't stand up and does not present enough convincing facts. It is one theory among many, but in education it is discussed as if it is accepted by everyone," Johannessen said.
Johannessen is a believer in creationism, based on the biblical account.
"Of course one has to know the theory of evolution, it is after all part of the curriculum. But certain lecturers demand that one believe it as well. Then it becomes a question of faith and not subject," Johannessen said.
Johannessen told the newspaper that he and his fellows are often compared to American extremists. Besides not being taken seriously or being able to debate the topic relevantly, Johannessen said that 'evolutionists' practically harass those who do not agree with them.
Dean Per Brodal said it was regrettable if any university staff were disparaging to creationists, but that there was no reason to complain about a lack of relevant evidence. Brodal also felt that evolution had a rather minor spot in medical education.
Biology professor Nils Christian Stenseth argued that instead of indulging an 'off-topic' debate the medical faculty should offer a course in fundamental evolutionary biology, saying that nothing in biology could be understood out of an evolutionary context.
The Christian Medical Students Circle want three basic points to be included in the curriculum:
1 According to the theory of evolution a mutation must be immediately beneficial to survive through selection. But many phenomena explained by evolution (for example the eye) involve so many, small immediately detrimental mutations that only give a long-term beneficial effect.
2 There is no fossil evidence to indicate transitional forms between, for example, fish and land animals or apes and humans.
3 Evolution assumes too many extremely improbably events occurring over too short a span of time.
.... and violate the sanctity of our precious bodily fluids!
But, but, but ... ignorance is soooo good for all God's children, isn't it?
It starts with craterism ...
From there, it "progresses" to evolutionism ...
By then the children will accept anything. This menace must end. It must end now!
1. Meteor craters are not observed to be happening now.
2. Meteor craters have not been observed to happen in the past.
3. Thomas Jefferson said: "Gentlemen, I would rather believe that two Yankee professors would lie than believe that stones fall from heaven."
4. The odds against a rock falling from the sky in a random fashion and making a crater are astronomical.
5. The second law of thermodynamics prohibits meteor craters.
6. Meteor craters are not mentioned in the bible, and are thus blasphemy.
7. Meteor craters have never been reproduced in the lab, and are thus not scientific.
8. Belief that rocks can fall from the sky promotes hedonism and animalistic, amoral behavior.
9. Craterism is a product of materialism and a naturalistic worldview.
10. Craterism makes no predictions and is untestable; it is therefore not scientific.
11. Craterists point to evidence of micro-cratering, but have no evidence of macro-cratering.
12. Scientists are abandoning craterism because they know it is not supported by evidence.
Whoa where did you get this from? Its wrong in every sense.
Macroevolution is just when a species has accumulated enough mutations that it can no longer interbreed with the parental population. And it has been observed (ex Drosophila).
Moreover, the evidence provided by comparing the genomes of different organisms is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution. For example there is a class of genes which control developmental patterning. Mutations in these genes which give rise to gross morphological changes are relatively easy to pinpoint when these regions are compared across species.
This isnt quite correct I but I see what you are getting at.
One example that I know of came to my mind: a few years ago there were a few papers which showed the mutations which occured that allowed crustaceans (lobsters, brine shrimp etc) split off from insects. It was a pretty rigourous study where and it was shown how a few discrete genetic changes caused a loss of back legs, a new feeding apparatus etc. There is a good presentation of this for the layman somewhere on the net. Ill look for it for you in the meantime.
Chorus:
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Jimmie Dodd:
AIG...
Chorus:
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Jimmie Dodd:
ICR...
Chorus:
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
All:
M-O-U-S-Eeeeeeeeeeeee.
LOL! And we are the gullible ones.
Obviously, you're a craterist who's addicted to the government grant-money gravey train. I pity you and your ilk.
Actually, 1/4 are homozygous for sickle-cell (usually die young from SSA), 1/4 are homozygous for normal hemoglobin (normal susceptability for malaria), and 1/2 are heterozygous (get the advantage of malaria resistance, but otherwise normal; in fact, people with one sickle-cell gene have served as test pilots, and in other O2-poor environments.)
Stuy this website, paying particular atttention to the "species-to-species" transitionals: Transitional fossils
I believe the cartoonish drawing is from the creationist Gish.
Non-cartoon like drawings, based on fossils http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/whale_evolution.html or http://studentwebs.coloradocollege.edu/~s_echt/
You might also be amused by figure 5 which summarizes a different line of evidence connecting whales and cows.
this is false. Consider the family tree I provided a link to above. Assuming it is true, one deduces that every pseudogene, transposon, etc, found in whales and cows will also be found in hippos. AFAIK, no test has ever shown this to be false. The same logic applies to any pseudogene found in baboons and chimps - it will also be found in people and gorillas. And so on and so on for all the different family trees.
To recap: predictions have been made on the assumption of common ancestry. They have all proven true. Therefore, the hypothesis of common ancestry is strengthened.
Or check the list in post 188 ff.
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.