[orionblamblam]

WFT are you babbling about? While the origins and specifics of the Big Bang might be more than a little hazy, the evidence for it is pretty abundant (look up the work of Hubble). The evidence for evolution is even more abundant. We're now finding the genetic mechanisms that let it happen; we've understood the basic cause-and-effect principles of nature that drive it, and the fossils show the trail of it.

Wave your hands all you want. Rant all you want. Creationists will occupy the same hallowed ground as the hollow-earthers in the history books. If they persist, they will drag their religion down with them.

[Mamzelle]

You know, you evolutionists ought to evolve a sense of humor. "Hans Vavink" was what I picked up in a physics class once. The professor actually had a funny bone in his genetic makeup--he said, "When the theory starts falling apart, employ the Hans Vavink protocol to get you out of jam". When we looked at him questioningly, he started waving his hands in the air. I see this protocol applied in many discussions in FR conscerning the origin of mankind.

When your fruit flies won't evolve, just call the one who notices "superstitious"...

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

We're now finding the genetic mechanisms that let it happen; we've understood the basic cause-and-effect principles of nature that drive it, and the fossils show the trail of it.

Maaaan quit yippin'. Your theory has more holes than swiss cheese.

================

The Five Crises in Evolutionary Theory, by Dr. Ray Bohlin

Link

1. The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution

2. The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable model

3. The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of complex adaptations

4. The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis

5. The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological stability over time and not constant change.

Raymond G. Bohlin is a graduate of the University of Illinois (B.S., zoology), North Texas State University (M.S., population genetics), and the University of Texas at Dallas (M.S., Ph.D., molecular biology)

===========================

No Speciation

Joseph Boxhorn, author of the talk-origins 'FAQ' on Speciation, makes a bold promise from the outset in his choice of title for his paper: 'Observed Instances of Speciation.' Any rational person visiting this site will naturally expect to find a list of cases where scientists, under controlled experimental conditions, have actually observed the process of speciation taking place.

However, anyone expecting to find such a list in Boxhorn's 'FAQ' is due for a major disappointment. It is true that Boxhorn does list a number of scientific observations, yet -- almost incredibly -- not a single one of these observations can be described as 'speciation' in the Darwinian sense, except by employing the kind of Double-Think used by officials at George Orwell's Ministry of Truth.

====================

Micro vs. Macro

Proponents of evolution often attempt to discredit creation by pointing to occurrences of microevolution, such as speciation, adaptation, etc. To the evolutionist, microevolution is vindication for their belief in the much larger macroevolution. Their belief is that if these microevolutionary changes have enough time to accumulate, then eventually this will lead to a macroevolutionary change. And therefore, in their way of thinking, if microevolution is a well established fact, macroevolution must logically be an established fact as well.

====================

Intelligent Design — Intro

[fr_freak]

Creationists will occupy the same hallowed ground as the hollow-earthers in the history books. If they persist, they will drag their religion down with them.

That's a silly statement. How can someone bring down his religion by believing in it?

The evidence for evolution is far from conclusive. In fact, research in the field these days seems to punch as many holes in the theory as it does patch them. For me, the greatest flaw in the theory is that, as an explanation for how existing life got on this planet, it necessarily points to spontaneous generation of life. Now, I know that most proponents of evolutionary theory say that spontaneous generation isn't part of the theory, that it only covers what happens to organisms once they already existed, but unless a theory accompanies evolution to explain that, evolution is starkly incomplete.

And by the way, the idea of spontaneous generation of life, to me, is a ridiculous concept. I won't go as far as to say that it is completely impossible, but I would find the possibility of a Creator to be far more likely.