Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
“If we’re descended from monkeys and apes, how come there are still monkeys and apes?”
-George Carlin
“Beat’s me.”
-Rex
I suppose I am, since nobody's ever been able to explain something to me:
If we evolved from lower animals, why do they still exist?
When your theory doesn’t hold water, claim every one else is too stupid to understand your brilliance.
Guy must be one of the Obama campaign strategists.
If all the ordinary plebes understand the Mysteries there would be no need for High Priests. And then where would we be?
So we can have barbecued stuff with our beer.
Could it be that the Temple of Darwin wants to keep the public’s understanding of natural selection watered down for fear that they might realize that Darwin’s ToE is collapsing under the weight of falsifying scientific evidence?
For more, see the following:
Can evolution Survive Without Darwin?
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200808.htm#20080829a
And woudl that make Evolution a religion?
More curiously, why aren’t those same monkeys and apes evolving into lower forms of humans?
You might be on to something there!
“Are you too dumb to understand evolution?”
I’m happy if I leave the mens room with my fly zipped.
question:
did darwin explain the divergence of one life form from from another or did he just talk about species evolving within species as an adaptation to environment?
it seems that evolutionists are always trying to find that missing link which they say exists but is just as elusive as ever. (thanks in advance)
I'm of the opinion that they don't still exist.
It can never be observed once much less twice or three times.That is another hypothetical construct as is Darwinian Evolution.
The odds of evolution happening exceeds the number of the stars in the universe. Even the most simple single cell needs over 128 proteins assembled precisely. This statistically would take billions of years in a proper environment. Then the cell would have to learn to reproduce. There should be more transitional creatures (missing links) than creatures. There are no missing links. Some atheists go to ridiculous lengths to try to prove no God!
fixed.
Not only have they not found the missing links, the field of epigenetics is discovering that mutation is NOT RANDOM. Once word of this gets out, it will destroy the entire neo-Darwinian synthesis. Thus the watered down versions of Darwin’s ToE.
.... It can never be observed once much less twice or three times.....
Please tell us where and how many times and under what circumstances you have ever looked.
How many hours have you logged in a lab or in the field. Where? When? Doing what? What were you studying?
What reasoning do evolutionists use? Can’t be deductive because no one had yet evolved to observe what could follow after life first formed. Can’t be inductive because the results of human history fail to offer any evidence that evolution ever occurred. Ah, must be faith!! the evidence of things hoped for but not seen.
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.