the evolution of species according to the process of random mutation and natural selection are "fully compatible with the available scientific evidence and also contemporary religious beliefs"
This is ludicrous.Natural selection (Darwinism)has been thrown out because it requires more time than even the evolutionist time frame allows ie;to be correct the sun would be exhausted before the process would get us to where we are.This was supplanted by the "hopeful monster"theory to explain how evolution could make huge jumps in a short period of time.In other word beneficial random mutation.
Neither abides by science or observation.
The two laws of thermodynamics say that 1)new matter is not being created and 2)all matter is in a state of decay.What this means is there is no scientific basis for a fish to grow claws,a reptile to grow hair or feathers.The gene that causes these traits would have to have appeared out of nothing and repeated the process again and again.
Mutations when occurring are almost always regressive in nature and are not beneficial to the original species.They are also usually sterile so that the mutation stops with that individual whether animal or human.
evolution is no more the work of the devil than is Newton`s theory of gravity
Evolution can no more be compared to gravity than a horse to a unicorn.Gravity is the name given to the force one mass exerts on another,call it anything you like but it can be demonstrated by anyone dropping a ball.Evolution cannot nor has been demonstrated by any means what so ever.That is no one has seen or found evidence of the vast numbers of "missing links" that natural selection or random beneficial mutation would require.
Evolution is the religion of those who would elevate man above God.That is why when challenged on the merits no rational argument is presented only assumptions and presumptions that require as much or more faith in the unseen or unprovable as intelligent creation.
Okay, you sound like someone who has devoted a vast amount of study to this subject. Let's see your challenge on the merits.
Well said. Finally some common sense to all the nonsense posted on this thread.
With regards to Post 15, I was just about to ask what these 'massive amounts of evidence which science has accumulated over more than a century' were all about. There was a great story in Phillip E. Johnson's book 'Darwin on Trial' were some academic group of evolutionists (British I believe) were having a meeting and after a bunch of argumentative discussion, the director stood up and asked the question 'so can we name one thing for certain that we know about evolution and that we can all agree on?' The room went silent.
You have no clue what you are talking about. None. Natural selection has been thrown out? By whom? Duane Gish?
The two laws of thermodynamics say that 1)new matter is not being created and 2)all matter is in a state of decay.
Militant ignorance.
Mutations when occurring are almost always regressive in nature and are not beneficial to the original species.They are also usually sterile so that the mutation stops with that individual whether animal or human.
It's been estimated that the average human is born with 2-3 unique mutations. We should all be sterile if you're right. You're wrong. There are tons of mutations floating around all the time. Some may be slightly harmful. Many are neutral. Some will be helpful. Only the immediately harmful are immediately weeded out. You don't have to be a genius to realize this.
Evolution is the religion of those who would elevate man above God.
The worst thing religious people seem to be able to say about evolution is that it's a religion. Funny that they should consider such to be an insult, but I guess it should be taken that way.
The people who think science is a religion also think science is argued with dishonest quoting and by attacking the founder of the "religion." We see that all the time and it's a hoot.
The situation is not reciprocal at all. All the attacks upon evolution by creationists are based upon absolute militant ignorance and religious horror of what evolution even says. By comparison, the people who defend science on these threads have become quite familiar with creationist literature. (Of course, it isn't very hard to absorb. The information content is virtually nil.)
We've seen everything you've got and it's all bogus. You don't even know what punctuated equilibrium is. One thing it definitely is not is Goldsmith's "hopeful monster" theory. Go to the back of the class.
[...]
Evolution is the religion of those who would elevate man above God.
I see... And how does your little thesis deal with the fact that the majority of Americans who accept evolution are *Christians*?
ROFL! You've been reading too much creationist material, I see. Sorry, but "punctuated equilibrium" is neither a "hopeful monster" theory, nor did it "throw out" Darwinism. Darwin himself described punctuated equilibrium, you nut. Are you sure you know what in the hell you're talking about?
Here's part of a post I wrote in response to yet another FR creationist who didn't actually understand punctuated equilibrium as well as he thought he did:
Care to try again?Furthermore, if you're under the mistaken belief that Gould's disagreement with "Darwinian gradualism" is the same thing as a rejection of "Darwinian *evolution*", you're grossly mistaken. While Darwin did lean towards a belief that evolution would usually proceed slowly, that doesn't change the fact that even though we've learned in the past 144 years that evolution can proceed at varying rates (sometimes rapidly by geological standards, sometimes almost coming to a standstill), the processes driving the transformation are still those which Darwin laid out. In other words, "Darwinian evolution" is vindicated even though a presumption of "nothing but gradualism" is not. Gould writes:
"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism."Or:
- Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1980), p. 182, emphasis added."It [punctuated equilibrium] represents no departure from Darwinian mechanisms."So much for Gould "agreeing" with you and disagreeing with "Darwinian evolution", eh?
-- Gould and Eldredge 1977, Section IV, "PE as the basis for a Theory of Macroevolution", page 139Furthermore, Gould has long been faulted for overstating Darwin's belief in gradualism. The following quote from Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" makes clear that he fully expected sudden events to appear in the fossil record, *and* that evolution would proceed at varying rates at different times:
"Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. Most formations have been intermittent in their accumulation; and their duration, I am inclined to believe, has been shorter than the average duration of specific forms. ... During the alternate periods of elevation and of stationary level the record will be blank. During these latter periods there will probably be more variability in the forms of life; during periods of subsidence, more extinction."Or even more succinctly:Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", 1859
"But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.In fact, it's obvious that Darwin himself foresaw at least the basics of punctuated equilibrium, if not the full scope of it.
Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", 1859...
There you go again, going off the deep end. As even the above quotes should make clear, Gould hardly "split completely with Darwinian evolutionists". And again, anyone who has actually bothered to read his works couldn't possibly make such a bone-headed mistake about his position.
You would be well advised to read All you need to know about Punctuated Equilibrium (almost): Common misconceptions concerning the hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium. Table of contents is as follows, you might find some of the points familiar:
Much confusion has surrounded the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) as proposed by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould in 1972. This essay addresses a few of the erroneous views held by many creationists and even some evolutionary biologists concerning PE. There are several main points I wish to make:1. There are two common uses of "gradualism," one of which is more traditional and correct, the other of which is equivalent to Eldredge and Gould's "phyletic gradualism."
2. Darwin was not a "phyletic gradualist," contrary to the claims of Eldredge and Gould.
3. PE is not anti-Darwinian; in fact, the scientific basis and conclusions of PE originated with Charles Darwin.
4. PE does not require any unique explanatory mechanism (e.g. macromutation or saltation).
5. Eldredge and Gould's PE is founded on positive evidence, and does not "explain away" negative evidence (e.g. a purported lack of transitional fossils).
No they don't. Where did you "learn" this nonsense?
What this means is there is no scientific basis for a fish to grow claws,a reptile to grow hair or feathers.
No, what it means is that you don't understand thermodynamics.
The gene that causes these traits would have to have appeared out of nothing
No, it would appear out of prior genetic material, which is not "nothing". Try again.
Mutations when occurring are almost always regressive in nature and are not beneficial to the original species.
Please quantify "almost always" if you think you can.
They are also usually sterile
False, but don't let that stop you...
Evolution cannot nor has been demonstrated by any means what so ever.
Oh... Then what is this, or this, or this, to mention just a few out of the literally millions of confirmations of evolution and common descent?
That is no one has seen or found evidence of the vast numbers of "missing links" that natural selection or random beneficial mutation would require.
You mean other than these several hundred examples, out of the countless thousands which have been discovered?
Are you sure you know what in the hell you're talking about?
That is why when challenged on the merits no rational argument is presented only assumptions and presumptions that require as much or more faith in the unseen or unprovable as intelligent creation.
Let's put your claim to the test, shall we? You "challenge evolution on the merits", and then you can see whether we respond with "rational arguments" or "assumptions...that require...faith in the unseen or unprovable". Go for it.
The laws of thermodynamics say no such thing. What they do say is that entropy is the natural state of the universe, and that randomness is the default in the absence of the addition of energy. Sunlight is a source of energy that helps in the assembly of more complex molecules all the time.
The problem is that Creation Science literature is usually little more than propaganda that takes liberties to prove its point. Most of the Creation Scientists don't have solid technical degrees. They only know enough about science to be dangerous.
This is not to say that there are not solid Creationist scientists; indeed, there are quite a few. Unfortunately, most of them are quietly doing their research and are not in the forefront of the Christian community.
Evolution is the religion of those who would elevate man above God.Then engineering is the same thing; and YOU are using products resulting from that process ...
No?
Is not using God's Laws (Nature and her varied and many properties) to do our *own bidding* tanatamount to roughly the same thing?