Why Darwinism Is Doomed

WorldNetDaily ^ | 09/27/2006 | Jonathan Wells

[GourmetDan]

Here's one for you from Halton Arp. He's the guy who discovered that redshift didn't equal distance and was refused telescope time for his discovery.

Such is how 'science' treats dissenters.

http://www.haltonarp.com/

Here's his Wiki entry for an easier read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp

Then see Tifft for his work on 'quantized' redshifts, which mean that redshifts don't represent distance, but some other quality of the object.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization

There are a lot more opinions of the evidence that 'standard science' would admit.

These guys are particularly interesting.

http://www.holoscience.com/

Have fun...

[freedumb2003]

Whatever evidence there is has been examined by many and found wanting. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE DOUBT BY MANY SCIENTISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

A itty bitty tiny weensie percentage is not "many." Oh, and almost none of those "scientists" are in the Life Sciences.

[ml1954]

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE is the issue.

Just wondering when that other interpretation is going to make an appearance. Or is this what you meant..

[SirLinksalot]

OK lets hear yours. This should be a dandy.

NO, let's here yours, this will indeed be a dandy.

[freedumb2003]

Unfortunately for you, the majority of Americans seem to remain unconvinced with Darwinism.

Because they don't like the conclusion and/or they (incorrectly) think it conflicts with The Bible.

[SirLinksalot]

Or is this what you meant..

A very nice mis-interpretative cartoon.

[freedumb2003]

You want me to go back over TToE for you?

[SirLinksalot]

You want me to go back over TToE for you?

[freedumb2003]

A very nice mis-interpretative cartoon.

Please tell us what it gets wrong.

[SirLinksalot]

You want me to go back over TToE for you?

You want me to go back to the ID rebuttal for you ?

[GourmetDan]

Yes, one who is still waiting for that bit of evidence that heliocentrism is uniquely true and one who stands with Sir Fred Hoyle who wrote:

"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."

Sir Fred Hoyle, Astronomy and Cosmology, 1975, p. 416, (Quoted in Spring, 02 BA, p.64.)

[ml1954]

A very nice mis-interpretative cartoon.

The floor is yours.

[freedumb2003]

Whatever gets it into evidence.

(I'm watching L&O right now)

;)

[SirLinksalot]

Please tell us what it gets wrong.

Iders look at the same evidence but come up with the conclusion that Random mutation plus natural selection cannot produce the complexity of life as we see it. THAT's WHATs wrong. IDers don't go to the Bible at all. Many IDers are agnostic.

[Dimensio]

I am unable to locate any articles rebutting current conclusions drawn from observation of ERV insertion patterns across primate species at either www.discovery.org or www.arn.org. Could you direct me to an article that I may have overlooked?

[freedumb2003]

You want me to go back to the ID rebuttal for you ?

Oh yes, please do. And don't forget to list the peer-reviewd journals that identify the ways in which ID is testable and falsifiable (to name two of the criteria necessary for a theory).

[js1138]

OK lets hear yours. This should be a dandy.

I posted a discussion by a well respected mathematician and biologist -- someone who is often cited by critics of evolution. He is generally regarded as fair-minded by evolution critics. You have almost certainly read his book on information theory. what do you think? Post 611

[js1138]

Oops, I posted that to the wrong person. Here it is again

I posted a discussion by a well respected mathematician and biologist -- someone who is often cited by critics of evolution. He is generally regarded as fair-minded by evolution critics. You have almost certainly read his book on information theory. what do you think? Post 611

[freedumb2003]

Iders look at the same evidence but come up with the conclusion that Random mutation plus natural selection cannot produce the complexity of life as we see it. THAT's WHATs wrong. IDers don't go to the Bible at all. Many IDers are agnostic.

Ah. Agnostic but believing in some sort of Q Continuum interloper. By defintion this is neither falsifiable nor testable.

You have but to produce the Designer for an interview and ID wins the day. But if said Dsigner keeps skulking in the shadows, ID is useless as a scientific idea and fails as a Scientific Theory.

[Jorge]

Its kind of like an incantation, or imitative magic. If you say it often enough perhaps it will come to pass.

Exactly. Those who profess hollow and Godless theories like evolution believe they can make a lie into fact by repeating it with enough personal conviction.

Unfortunately they insist on following this fable to it's ultimate doom.