Posted on 07/07/2007 2:31:35 AM PDT by balch3
Mr Lundbergh is absolutely accurate in his critique of the false pseudo-scientific religion of Darwinism.
The hysterical/irrational reaction of its adherents is similar in many ways to the reaction to Pope Benedict's brilliant Regensburg lecture.
Such people do not like to have their certainties questioned.
For anyone with an open mind, neither historical evidence nor scientific experimentation lend any credibility to this "theory". It remains just that, a preposterous theory, not a matter of fact. It's very much a case of ideology masquerading as science, a crutch for closed minds, an ideology for the deluded.
There's nothing concrete or tangible about it. The contrast with the contribution of its adherents' great ideological enemy (Roman Catholicism) could not be greater. There you have tangible evidence of its reality. For example you can visit the great universities, Oxford, Cambridge, Bologna etc. You can see the Sistine Chapel. You can expand your mind by absorbing the genius of Thomas Aquinas and so on, and so on.
Bad "scientific" ideas (like all bad ideas) have bad consequences. ERIC CONWAY, NAVAN, CO MEATH * Redmond O'Hanlon writes that adherents of evolution rely on "a biased interpretation" (Letters, July 28).
This could not be futher from the truth. One of the main reasons so many books by atheist writers have appeared recently is because of the "intelligent design" concept in the USA.
Over the last few years hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in an attempt by scientists to find evidence for God's handy work in the natural world. They have even tried (unsuccessfully) to have intelligent design inserted into school science courses on the basis that both arguments deserve equall respect, even though Darwinian evolution has literally mountains of ancient evidence to back it up, and intelligent design has no evidence at all, only theory based on parts of evolution which have not been fully explained by conventional science, yet.
If people such as Mr O'Hanlon can't reconcile evolution with the existence of God, then this is as good as proof that God dosen't exist, in the same way we know the earth is not flat because we know its true shape. Proof is always positive which is why nobody can ever find evidence for the non-existence of God.
No whining. Just pointing out expected crevo debate standards. You make the assertion, you back it up. You don’t go sending people off to chase fairy tale statements you made and *do their own work*.
Creationists are regularly criticized for not backing up what they say. It goes both ways. Not providing anything basically means you have nothing. Failure to provide substantial evidence for your assertions gives you no credibility.
I’m continually amazed at what people who criticize Scripture as being unreliable will swallow, hook, line, and sinker.
What they claim to believe has no more to support it than than the Bible according to their standards, and yet they dis Scripture and believe their own made up scenarios.
Creationists come to a scientific debate armed with a Bible and TRVTH. And then they whine when scientists don't accept their divine revelation as scientific evidence.
Science has filled many floors of many libraries with data, and from that data have come well-tested and well-supported theories.
You claim science doesn't "back it up?" And you claim "Not providing anything basically means you have nothing."
Try a major university library--the science section. Plan on spending a few decades. That's what science takes.
Or maybe you could just join Barbie at the mall.
The point was backing up one’s statements.
If someone states something, it’s up to the person making the claim or statement, to back it up.
Why is everybody getting off topic about that?
You'll have to excuse metmom, burzum, the creationists never taught her what a "reference list" is.
OK, so next time I make a statement, I won’t have to back it up. I’ll just tell you to look it up yourself and all you evos will be OK with that. Right?
After all, that IS what we’re discussing; providing evidence to back up one’s assertions and statements.
To say that we've figured it all out 200 years later and evolution is the key is ridiculous. Many hasn't even touched on the wonder of the universe. It's our limitation.
Or others of the articles listed. Especially I'd recommend:
Nilson, D.; Pelger, S. "A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B 1994, 256, 53.
Ahayes- those articles make it very clear that the ‘evolution of the eye’ is not sometyhing that has been extensively verified through indisputable scientific evidence, but rather has been extensively conjectured and opined about lacking supporting evidence. When it comes down to it, stating that because an ‘early worm’ (timelines being something that is also hotly debated as well) has ‘light sensitive cells’ in the brain, then that is a difinitive clue that our eyes evolved from these cells, is nothign more than personal opinion based on assumptions. You folks keep claiming that there is ‘extensive evidneces that are ‘well supported’ and show clear lines of evolution, yet what the evidences amount to are species with unique makeups- that are seperated by millions of years (according to evo folks) and is paramount to huge leaps in faith. The lines of the supposed ear evolution included examples of species that were so vastly different from one another that, and supposedly so distanced from one another, that it takes a tremendous amount of faith in an a priori opinion to make the connections. As previously stated about the ear evolution, the evidentiary fact is completely ignored when it comes to comparing later more closely related species that we know were infact related, and which show not a clear evolution of the ear, but a regression in the jaw bones back to the normal Design. As well, nowhere in the record do we see the 4 bones accumulating in the ear and arranging in a manner that amounts to a completed hearing system, yet, we’re told that the ear hearing system is ‘extensively documented, and widely accepted’
I’m sorry, but anectdotal evidences, seperated by supposedly millions of years, aren’t very valid arguments for evolution, and aren’t as ‘extensively demonstrated’ as we are led to believe.
I’m afraid I’m used to you dismissing all evidence out of hand.
The only hting your references allude to is the fact that there are genes that are similar for eye developement in several species (Where these genes come from, evos avoid speculating on- but that’s another fly in the ointment we’ll leave for another discussion).
From this discovery of the similar genes, evo scientists concoct elaborate fact and evidence devoid theories, and we’re told, “the evidence is clear’ when infact it is so far from being clear that it takes a wild imagination in order to accept.
You articles point out that the organ specific gene information is already present in such species, and make no effort at all to attempt to explain where and how these informations arose in the first place- when this is pointed out we get the all excusing excuse that ‘well, we don’t know everythign about certain issues yet, but one day we might’
When the suggestion that the species specific information could be a design feature that is absolutely necessary for organ development, the notion is scoffed at and ridiculed, yet no plausible alternative is given other than “We’re not sure how these protiens that control the instructions for the organ development came about, but we’re confident that science will one day discover it” (Despite they’ve had 150 years of intense study)
Researches have managed to mess with these genes, and cause eyes to show up where they shouldn’t normally be, but in no way does this go to the heart of the adamant assertion that they’ve discovered how the eye evolved- this is nonsense. All they’ve managed to show is that manipulating ALREADY PRESENT INFORMATION can cause all manner of wierdness- but the absolutely relevent point NEEDS to be stressed here, that they are working on information that is already present and fully functional and highly irreducibly complex- ALL they are managing to show is MICROEVULIONARY manipulation and NOT Macroevolution- not even close. This is a VERY important distiction and needs to be made absolutely clear in light of the fact that evos claim evolution can be demonstrated and explained- when infact, all they manage to explain and show is MICROEVOLUTION-
Again- there is NO evidence of macroevolution that sceicne can point to- none- Ann was correct in stating this.
LOL- Yes Ahayes, the fact that macroevolution has never been shown or demonstrated has nothign to do with my dismissals at all- this dummy just dismisses everything based on nothing- nothing like the obvious fact that everything I outlined is factually true. Nothing like the fact that wild leaps in faith are needed in order to ‘fit the evidneces’ in order to beleive in ear evolution. Sorry- I don’t share such faith in light of hte lack of evidence. Sorry that I want something more than “The banana and the pear are related and evolved from one another because the two have stems- which should be clear evidence that the two evovled together. The vagueness is far too obscure to be sound science I’m afraid.
Yeah metmom, dunt you now that us dummies without edumacations kan’t make informed descisions based on evidences we read about because we don’t have no fancy shmancey titles in front of our names? (We’ll not bring up the fact that the material we’re reading is much the same material that the doctors have, but because we dunt have no titles, weer appauntly unkapable of understandeeng the glaring vaguenesses and misseeng infurmtiun that is so keenely left out and diskised in the mateeriul we done did reeded.
<<”Induction of ectopic eyes by targeted expression of the eyeless gene in Drosophila”. >>
Good golly- this material in that title is nothign but an apologetic trying to explain that a gene is the master controller responsible for the developement of the whole eye and all it’s irreducibly complex parts- This is your ‘evidence’ that the eye evolution has now been explained? It is nothing but a “We’ve discovered how the eye must have evovled, BUT....” They then go on a merry goround of “IF this happend, then this COULD have happened IF the environment were precisely right, but on ly IF these genes were fully developed and functional and worked in conjunction with the vast amount of other fully formed genes and process specific protiens”
Yup- sounds like your folks have got this eye evolution thing explained quite well lol. I’m sold!
Nature is saying: “Evolution happens”.
Because, I don't need to take someones word on it - especially when the words diverge from the reality that I see around me every day.
It is MY interpretation - not some long-dead politician/ holy man trying to control the masses while enriching himself and seizing power.
[It is MY interpretation - not some long-dead politician/ holy man trying to control the masses while enriching himself and seizing power.]
Lol- yeah- being a born again person has been such a drudgery of bondage and servitute- bound by shackles and treated like a lowly surf-
Control the masses- lol good one.
As a general rule you don’t back up the statements you make - when backed into a corner you attack the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.
I found this great quote on another site:
“Marijuana is the Gateway Drug.
And Darwin is the Gateway Science.
First it’s evolution. Then comes plate tectonics and the Big-Bang. Then comes Athiesm. Then comes self-loathing and misanthropy, which leads to elitism and superiority complexes. The resulting social ostracization leads to homoeroticism and other perversions. The insatiable demand for money to fund extravagances coupled with the sloth that accompanies the welfare check creates a visceral hatred of capitalism. Finally, the abuser is no longer able to feel for his country and multiculturalism takes over. The transformation is complete.
I’ve seen it happen again and again.”
Since you dismissed a study of hundreds of fossils showing a definite evolutionary trend by supposing the existence of thousands of hypothetical fossils demolishing that trend which were supposedly knowingly suppressed by the authors of the study, I’ve lost any interest in presenting you with evidence. For you it’s a foregone conclusion that they’re wrong and you’ll just handwave it away.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
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.