Skip to comments.
Why Darwinism Is Doomed
WorldNetDaily ^
| 09/27/2006
| Jonathan Wells
Posted on 09/27/2006 9:56:09 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 1,181-1,195 next last
To: ClearCase_guy
181
posted on
09/27/2006 1:22:50 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
To: SirLinksalot
So he belongs to a cult. That shouldn't be a reflection on his mental faculties at all! (/sarc)
182
posted on
09/27/2006 1:25:03 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
To: hosepipe
What do Moonies think of Jesus anyway?
183
posted on
09/27/2006 1:25:32 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
To: Frwy
Do you know what the "peril" is to a Moonie?
184
posted on
09/27/2006 1:26:55 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
To: driftdiver
So we are to assume that you have a full understanding of the universe based on your stated beleive in Darwinism. And further that anyone questioning the science of people with an obvious agenda are ignorant? Just wondering not attacking. NO! absolutely not. and in Darwinism I believe that although the basic tenant is correct, there is so many twists and turns to both human and animal evolution, that no-one can really know the whole story....ever.
people who question the science of people with an obvious agenda, could also be scientists. thats one thing scientist do...question.
I for one question global warming as bad science.
Global Warming
185
posted on
09/27/2006 1:28:04 PM PDT
by
Vaquero
("An armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
To: muawiyah; DannyTN
Quit dismissing the YEC's.
They are not strawmen.
186
posted on
09/27/2006 1:29:34 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
To: Cinnamon Girl
Muddy Mudskipper!
187
posted on
09/27/2006 1:31:32 PM PDT
by
Vaquero
("An armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
To: sasafras
I would disagree that progressive secularists would agree with your assertion.
Evolution is a field of biologists, not "progressive secularists", thus such a disagreement is not based upon valid authority.
Evolution is used as a means to dissuade our population that God had a hand in creating life.
The theory of evolution neither states nor implies this. Attempting to "use" the theory to promote such a claim is impossible without lying about what the theory states.
This is the argument being played out. Secularists vs. Christian Fundamentalists.
The ideological debates between "secularists" and "Christian Fundamentalists" has no bearing on a theory in biological science.
Secularists have won because Christians have not been willing to challenge their assertions on Evolution and the Big Bang.
If, as you suggest, "secularists" are attempting to use the theory of evolution as an attack against "Christian Fundamentalists", then the correct response is to point out that the theory has no bearing on a debate over religious ideology. Attacking the theory itself shows only that the Christian Fundamentalists are falling for the lie that the theory of evolution has theological implications.
Two theories which have no proof
No theory in science "has proof". Theories are never proven.
or are mathematically impossible.
Please cite the relevant calculations to show this impossibility.
Cant evolution be used a scientific theory, to describe how a single cell would evolve into a more complex (many cell) organism?
Yes.
If so what is the natural selection process to create the first strand of DNA?
If DNA emerged from natural selection, it did so as a result of imperfectly replicating chains of molecules being viable enough to continue forming in longer and longer chains, possibyl emerging from RNA strands. However, information on this subject is insufficient to state that natural selection is directly responsible for the emergence of DNA.
These have to be answered before evolution can move from theory to fact.
Theories do not "move" to fact. A fact is a single data point, a description of an observation. A theory is an attempt to explain the cause for a collection of facts. An explanation does not "move" to an observation.
A theory should be open to challenge; if not then it is dead.
The theory of evolution is open to challenge. Thus far no challenge has successfully falsified it.
Evolutionists have used their theory to "disprove" God - to say otherwise is refuting the current debate being waged in our schools
Please demonstrate that the theory of evolution is used to "disprove" God in schools where it is taught.
Evolution is a tool to claim something that is not provable.
All theories in science are "not provable". Why do you single evolution out for attack on this basis?
188
posted on
09/27/2006 1:31:44 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Last Visible Dog
God by definition is a matter of faith - I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
I'm not barking up any tree. Put my statement back in context.
.
189
posted on
09/27/2006 1:32:15 PM PDT
by
mugs99
(Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
To: Last Visible Dog
Personal attack alert.
Is that all you have?
190
posted on
09/27/2006 1:32:27 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
To: mugs99
There are gnostic deists.
191
posted on
09/27/2006 1:35:18 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
To: Last Visible Dog
If the first lifeforms were created by a God or "nothing", how would that change the mechanics of evolution?
192
posted on
09/27/2006 1:38:04 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
To: Last Visible Dog
193
posted on
09/27/2006 1:48:18 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
To: Revolting cat!
"but don't call me anti-science!"
194
posted on
09/27/2006 1:50:23 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
To: Last Visible Dog
Mentioning mules reminds me of the Neo-Darwinist beleif that two similar things not being able to reproduce is the only and solid proof of specizations. Interesting. So does that mean a horse and a donkey are the same species since they can reproduce?Wrong.
Different species are defined as groups who do NOT reproduce, not those who CAN'T.
You might want to read up on the subject a bit more.
195
posted on
09/27/2006 1:52:36 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
To: taxesareforever
196
posted on
09/27/2006 1:53:15 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
To: Cinnamon Girl
Wow. That's so insightful.
197
posted on
09/27/2006 1:54:24 PM PDT
by
stands2reason
(The map is not the territory - A. Korzybski)
To: finnman69
And hen I will take you on a tour of the same museum and reexplain it...from a creationist perspective.
198
posted on
09/27/2006 2:01:22 PM PDT
by
LiteKeeper
(Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
To: stands2reason
If the first lifeforms were created by a God or "nothing", how would that change the mechanics of evolution? It won't
To: stands2reason
Different species are defined as groups who do NOT reproduce, not those who CAN'T. Can you provide supporting evidence for this claim?
So me and Pamela Anderson are different species because we do NOT reproduce (it is not because we can't) I think your statements are not very well "fleshed out"
You might want to read up on the subject a bit more.
You might want to provide some supporting evidence for YOUR claims - we are not going to take you word on it.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 1,181-1,195 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson