Evolution is preposterous

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.

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.

But....she has a very good point. Where are all the fossils supporting evolution?

When I studied evolution for a number of years in grad school I didn't have any trouble finding fossils that support the theory of evolution. They were all through the textbooks and journals, and the bone lab had a rather impressive collection of casts.

There are a lot more in the textbooks and journals now. And, nowadays there are fossils all over the internet as well.

So who's having trouble finding fossils that support evolution?

Or is it that some folks have decided, for religious reasons, that evolution didn't happen, and thus conclude that no fossils could support that idea?

[[So who’s having trouble finding fossils that support evolution?]]

Folks who understand that there are no scientific facts backing hte hypothesis that everythign has common ancestors, and hwo understand that the biological impossibilities prevent such an hypothesis from being factual.

[[Or is it that some folks have decided, for religious reasons, that evolution didn’t happen, and thus conclude that no fossils could support that idea?]]

Nope- See reply above.

First of all, we probably do have human fossils from that time period, as well as other fossils- however, the ‘infallible dating methods’ [sarcasm] employed by geologists and archeologists date them wrong based on flukey dating methods, and an a priori belief about age. I’ll not get into that arguemtn though as you have your beleif and faith and opinion in the system of dating, and we don’t- simple as that. We can argue all day long about the veracity of the dating method, but it’s a fruitless argument as those hwo beleive in it must do so based on a priori beliefs and assumptions- that is not meant as insult, as our faith also is based on beleif- the simple fact is, the dating methods are wonky, and we have no way of going back in time and must step outside of science and base our beliefs on assumptions - a priori assumnptions- botrh sides must do this. I’m sorry, but I don’t have faith in an a priori dating method where one would find a human skull in the wrong place and is able to state “The date must be wrong’ and keep trying until a date that fits the a priori belief pops up. We can deny htis takes place, but it is said that a majority of dates are rejected by peer review, and this very well could play into it. We know that hwen human artifacts or fossils show up where they aint sposed to be, we’rte told that ‘something must have happened to place it htere- some ‘natural phenomena’ and we’re handed an explanation to explain it away- always! and I’m sorry, but there are just too many major assumptions employed, and too much spologetics (for lack of better word) when evidences contradict the a priori belief. you may dissagree, but that is my stand on this issue and I respect your beleif as well- I just dissagree.

Secondly, it seems ot me that the fossils labelled as Cambrian age fossils (again based on wonky dating methods) were over 5000 species strong and mostly all oceanic species- mollusks, jellyfish, sponges, corrals, worms,sponges, trilobytes and crustations, and fishes. Whati s hte reason for htis? There are several explainations- one being that massive sedimentary disruptions during a chaotic disruptive event such as, oh say, a flood, forced a compilation of certain species, in this case oceanic species, to be buried deep, under massive pressure, while other species were buried in other areas and at different levels, and under lesser pressures (which would have been the case had the species been floated at or near surface of water and deposited later than the oceanic species which wouldn’t have floated as well. This of course is hypothetical, and just speculation, and not something I stand by- but it’s a plausibility non the less.

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.