The More They Know Darwin, The Less They Want Darwin-Only Indoctrination

Evolution News & Views ^ | October 27, 2009 | Anika Smith

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

My second statement does follow the first. You ASSUME that a bear and a fox have a common ancestor and that is why they have similarities. It is an assumption based on your evolutionary worldview. There is no proof for it.

I ASSUME that a bear and a fox have a common Creator and that is why they have similarities.

The ONLY reason I have for wanting to withdraw from the converstian is because you believe that everything an evolutionist says about the past (even millions of years into the past) is gospel truth.

You can’t even admit that your opinion and the opinion of EVERY person causes them to be biased about the information in front of them. Until you can admit that there is no foundation for discussion.

[Ira_Louvin]

Would you prefer that I provided a separate link to each of the 152,000 hits providing evidence for “macro-evolution”?

[GodGunsGuts]

You said it can be demonstrated both in the lab and in nature...so let’s see a demonstration!

[xcamel]

GGG - MS*, BS*, and FOS*

[Ira_Louvin]

review the links provided

[betty boop]

AMD: Monkeys fill an ecological niche, where there is a “demand” for monkeys, nature has provided a “supply”.

How does "nature" recognize that there is a demand for monkeys, so to devotedly produce the requisite supply? Why should "nature" — evidently conceived as a wholly Newtonian, i.e., material system in AMD's view — care whether there are any monkeys at all?

Is it "nature" determining all this complicated calculus that at some point turns into monkeys, or only AMD? (Evidently AMD needs monkeys to make his world turn out right.)

[allmendream]

Nature, i.e. the natural world made by God, need not recognize the “demand”; the natural world continues to provide monkeys that live up in trees because the monkeys that live up in trees survive and produce more monkeys adapted to living up in trees.

Nature, i.e. the natural world made by God, doesn't have the capacity to “care”.

Apparently God needed monkeys to make HIS world turn out right, because THERE THEY ARE!

The fact of the matter is that the “demand” or niche for monkeys (or some other sort of arboreal agile fruit and nut eater) is in NO WAY going to go away when a different population of monkeys starts living on the ground.

Do you understand this concept?

The “demand” or niche for people living in England did not go away just because some English people sailed to America and became Americans.

There is no necessity for an ancestral species to go extinct just because an offshoot of that population adapts to a new environment.

And yet Creationists are so ignorant of the theory they seek to credibly reject, they keep posting that idiotic canard of “If people came from monkeys how come there are still monkeys?”

Idiocy.

[xcamel]

There are americans, so why are there still brits.. or anyone else for that matter...

[GodGunsGuts]

Just as I thought. AC is right. The most appropriate search term to describe Darwin’s evo-religious creation myth is “fairytale.”

[whattajoke]

You can’t even admit that your opinion and the opinion of EVERY person causes them to be biased about the information in front of them.

When you get on an airplane, do you feel secure in the knowledge of flight engineers that your plane will actually fly? Or is that just their opinion?

Did Neil Armstrong walk on the Moon, or is that his opinion?

Did the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki get incinerated because of Oppenheimer's opinion which used lots of Einstein's opinions?

At some point, even you have accepted much of science as fact. Aeronautics, Medicine, Chemistry, Physics... For some reason, your religion does not allow you to take that step with Biology.

[TXnMA]

The best way to get your “citation” is to do as I did: complain to Jim about GGG’s posting multiple “SPAM” articles on this subject in NEWS every day.

Go ahead: do it publicly in this thread, so we can all see the response you get.

[Ira_Louvin]

As usual you dismiss scientific evidence and fall back on your ridicule, misdirection, and name calling.

That goes to show that you are “out of bullets”

[GodGunsGuts]

That’s rich! I asked you for the scientific evidence that establishes macro-evolution—evidence that you said is observed both in nature and in the lab—and you failed to produce any. And then you have the audacity to tell me I’m dismissing the evidence!?!?! Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to say that you shrank from producing the evidence because you are starting to dawn on you that it’s not there???

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

“At some point, even you have accepted much of science as fact. Aeronautics, Medicine, Chemistry, Physics... For some reason, your religion does not allow you to take that step with Biology.”

I accept biology as fact. However, evolutionary biology is another prospect altogether. You have accepted it as fact although no one was there to see it happen or record it. We all have the same facts in the present. Our worldview will cause us to interpret these fact differently.
The science that gave us airplanes and space travel and the atomic bomb is operational science. There is a big difference between operational science and historical science. For some reason your evolutionary bias will not allow you to differentiate between the two.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

BTW, I didn’t always believe in YEC. It was actually the lack of evidence on the other side that lead me to my conclusions not my “religion” as you put it.

[whattajoke]

I accept biology as fact. However, evolutionary biology is another prospect altogether.

Biology is the natural science concerned with the study of life and living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, distribution, and taxonomy.

Most definitions will mention that word. Modern (ie, post 1900) biology is predicated on an acceptance of evolution. To deny that requires all the twists and obfuscations present in GGG posts.

The science that gave us airplanes and space travel and the atomic bomb is operational science.

Hm. Then why all the dissent before the atomic bomb was tested? Same as the supercollider today... Its effects had never been seen before (moon landing too), but scientists utilized their pooled knowledge to go forward - with resounding success. Evolution isn't about "seeing it happen" (nor were moon landings or nuclear fission for that matter), but rather, following the evidence.

That said, I appreciate you not calling me names. I like you.

[Ira_Louvin]

No it would not. I provided links to 152,000 websites that show evidence of “macro-evolution”, and like 99% of scientific evidence you have chosen to dismiss it because it does not fit with your pre-conceived ideas.

My acceptance of the evolutionary theory is based on mountains of supporting evidence, you and your fellow history-deniers can choose to ignore, and distort that evidence but that does not change the facts.

Your ridicule, name-calling, and misdirection will not work.

[betty boop]

There are americans, so why are there still brits.. or anyone else for that matter...

I'm sorry, xcamel; but I do not follow you here. Er, understand the implied question.

[Rafterman]

Jim has made his feelings clear in the postings that tpanther provided the links to. While I don’t agree with it, it is HIS forum, after all.

I will, however, be pursuing other means to the same end. Will let you know how it turns out.

[betty boop]

...the natural world continues to provide monkeys that live up in trees because the monkeys that live up in trees survive and produce more monkeys adapted to living up in trees.

And there you have it, in a nutshell: The Meaning of Life, according to the gospel of AMD. :^)

LOLOL!!!