Posted on 11/05/2009 6:15:26 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
In August 2009, retired University of Liverpool marine biologist Donald Williamson officially challenged the standard Darwinian interpretation of caterpillar origins. His paper was fast-tracked to publication by a “high-placed advocate,”[1] but shortly afterward his ideas were rebutted in the very same journal. While this back-and-forth exchange has sparked intense criticism over the submission and review processes that were used, the situation also reveals core problems with broad-scale evolution...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
>>You’re on fire tonight, GGG. Love ya, man.<<
Yes — he is getting killed in every possible area of debate. Self-immolation seems to be his best option.
Life was simple when GGG was a kid. (as follows):
Momma, where do people come from? Momma: God.
Momma, who made the sun? Momma: God
Momma, why is the sun so hot: Momma: God made it hot to keep up warm.
Momma, why is dirt so dirty: Momma: God made you from the dirt.
Careful. Last night GGG was talking about rectal exams and asking several posters to 'get behind him'.
You are the one who is not rising to the challenge, diaper boy. I just told you that your fellow droolers in the Temple of Darwin have no explanation for the origin of life, darwood’s main evo-religious predictions are falling one after the other, not least of which is darwood’s so-called ‘tree of life.’ Indeed, it has gotten so bad for the Temple of Darwin that even the evos are abandoning the HMS Beagle in search of a new God-denying evolutionary ship. I know you will find this hard to believe now, but once you are past the diaper stage, darwood’s evo-religious creation myth will leave you red-faced with embarrassment. Although, given your screenname, I doubt that will happen anytime soon.
Is rae4palin really GodGunsGuts?
>>You are the one who is not rising to the challenge, diaper boy. <<
OMG stop it! stop it! You are making me double over in laughter!
>>I just told you that your fellow droolers in the Temple of Darwin have no explanation for the origin of life,<<
And you just keep ignoring the fact that abiogenesis has nothing to do with TToE. You have been told hundreds, maybe thousands of times, but your ears and eyes and little brain are permanently closed.
>>darwood’s main evo-religious predictions are falling one after the other, not least of which is darwood’s so-called ‘tree of life.’ Indeed, it has gotten so bad for the Temple of Darwin that even the evos are abandoning the HMS Beagle in search of a new God-denying evolutionary ship. <<
Only in your fantasy world. In the real grown-up world where real scientists do real science your little Batboy articles aren’t even acknowledged. And the real world understands that believing in God has nothing to do with using science to understand His Universe.
>>I know you will find this hard to believe now, but once you are past the diaper stage, darwood’s evo-religious creation myth will leave you red-faced with embarrassment. Although, given your screenname, I doubt that will happen anytime soon.<<
Keep repeating yourself in the face of facts. You are such a little boy. And using my screenname as an issue shows just how much of a little boy you are.
What a fool you are. As I said, the only reason I engage you at all is to let the outside world know that you do NOT represent Conservatives and instead are a small example of an outlyer who tries to get attention by screaming like a wittle baby in the grocery store.
Intelligent Conservatives understand science. Foolish little babies do not.
that is correct. Have you looked up the meaning of "orderly" lately?
The universe might appear to be chaos beyond comprehension, but mankind is learning more about it every day; a learning that involves technological advances and looking into theories based on real life observations - while threatening or destroying (ala Copernicus and Galileo) religious beliefs.
Would you really like to return to Inquisition days?
I just told you that your fellow droolers in the Temple of Darwin have no explanation for the origin of life
And I just explained to you that the evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life
“It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421
repeating the same falsehood over, and over again does not make it true
>>Is rae4palin really GodGunsGuts?<<
Dude! You are one of the funniest posters I have encountered in quite a while.
Some evening when I am “in the slot” we will have to trade barbs. I seem to be a little too steamed to hit that humor continuum tonight.
It is probably because I am a little under the weather.
Your buddies want to debate the truth, while real scientists want to find the truth.
Now that both Ida and Ardi have bit the dust, it's time for some other earthshaking fossil to suddenly appear like Marley's ghost to squeeze a few grant farthings from Scrooge.
Maybe another walking whale or Barney as a feather duster?
Dude! You are one of the funniest posters I have encountered in quite a while.
I was serious 
“If I were to tell you that The Theory of Gravity is less understood than TToE”
I call B.S. on this.
The Theory of Gravity can be tested and observed under controlled conditions.
You can’t say that about the TOE. You can’t test for one-time historical events. The only testing that is used as evidence for the TOE is observable experiments that show adaptation. But adaptation and the TOE are not the same thing. There is no observable test which can be used as evidence for the TOE because it supposedly takes so long for the mutations to create (oops! I shouldn’t use that word, should I?) a new species.
We know that Newton did not understand gravity.
We know that Einstein did not understand gravity.
We know that NO ONE understands gravity.
typical darwin-drone..............you know I beleive in evolution how?
Surely you have a better defense for your ignorant attacks on the scientific method than that.
I’m just ASTOUNDED that in all your post that I’ve stumbled across in the last few months you’ve been mercilessly mocking something you now have admitted you know nothing about.
STUNNING!
>>The Theory of Gravity can be tested and observed under controlled conditions.<<
I knew someone would say this. It is another sign of how deep the ignorance is in some quarters.
The theory of Gravity has nothing to do with the phenomenon of Gravity. The conflation of the two shows how little so many of you know about science.
>>We know that NO ONE understands gravity.<<
I do — the Earth sucks.
(sorry about that “funny” stuff before...)
Darwin's theory became widely accepted science after the rediscovery of Mendelian genetics, and the works of Ronald Fisher, Edmund Ford and others. It's just as widely accepted today as it's ever been, if not more so.
However, Darwin's theory of Pangenesis was rejected by science, which is something you can't explain if he's some type of religious figure.
Gotcha! You really are under the weather! Take care with the bug.
I am thinking it is H1N1, the common cold, or Andromeda...
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.