Posted on 06/03/2009 9:49:09 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Evolution As Catch-All Explanation
June 3, 2009 — If you were taught a precise definition of neo-Darwinism in school, it doesn’t seem to matter to many evolutionists in the media. In practice, the word “Evolution” seems to act as a catch-all category for explaining anything and everything – whether or not random mutation and natural selection were involved. Some purpose and design can even be tossed into the mix as long as Evolution is the hero of the story. Here are some recent examples of how Evolution is employed to explain whatever:...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Isn’t it amazing? They get all the funding, and yet they are so easily destroyed. Yet more proof that the darwin cult has almost nothing to do with genuine science.
Like I said, post your little leap of logic in you own thread, and I will be glad to respond.
If you have all these mountains of evidence why wait?
Why is it so hard for you just to start your own thread. Are you afraid that nobody will show up to the party?
The fact that the Big Government Public School monopoly peddles anti-Americanism, sex perversion, unspeakable immorality, Obama marxism, etc. does not matter.
To these worshippers, none of these terrible things matter as long as the worldview of a Creator God as the foundation of America is destroyed as a matter of Public School Policy straight from the far left fanatics who are kings over the Public School indoctrination camps.
You are quite right. And not only that, they are far more devoted to destroying the source of America’s strength than most Christians are to preserving the same.
If as you stated in this very thread if Evolution is so easy to destroy then here is your chance.
The article you posted states Evolution is a “catch-all explanation” I posted a reply that shows that assertion is not correct.
So with no rebuttal we must assume that the original assertion has in fact been proven to be incorrect.
Here’s your chance to defend your own thread. Either you are afraid nobody will show up, or you afraid that you are not up to the challenge. Either way, it is obvious you are too timid to come out of the shadows and stand on your own two feet.
Can you not defend your own thread?
Avoiding the questions are just proving my point.
I quickly read through your list (appears to be getting longer - at least I know I’ve see you post it before).
Are any of the points dealing w/ macro-evolution? If there are they are very subtle. Do you truly think evolutonary science has proved macro-evolution?
The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is the amount of time
Then I guess the complexities involved in the coding of DNA mean nothing to you. I’m sure you’re also hoping they come up w/ some new age-dating techniques to make the universe and solar system even older to support evolutionary wishful thinking.
So which of those 14 points do you have a problem with, and what evidence do you have to support your position?
“The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is the amount of time”Has this ever been repeatably demonstrated?
Please see number 14 on the list.
So the only insurmountable and non-repeatable problems are that life is NOT increaing in diversity (appearances are deceiving when the DNA code is being limited w/ micro-changes), and by mis-understanding point 13 then point 14 is a non-sequitor.
Not to mention that there are over 100 age-dating techniques that point to a young earth/universe age (thousands, sometimes millions but never billions). And all age-dating techniques have assumptions and show inconsistencies indicating we should trust the simple common sense (Occam’s Razor) rather than the ‘experts’
Number 14 asserts that:“Please see number 14 on the list.”“The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is the amount of time”Has this ever been repeatably demonstrated?
14. Over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain both the diversity within and similarities between the forms of life observed on earth, including both living forms directly observed in the present, and extinct form indirectly observed from the fossil record.How do they know that?
What evidence do you have to support that assertion?
Please be specific, what problems do you have with the list
and what supporting evidence do you have?
Your unwavering support of a yet to be demonstrated claim.
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.