Posted on 12/03/2009 8:35:52 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Evolutionists retreating from the arena of science
--snip--
Today, the Darwinian scientific consensus persists within almost every large university and governmental institution. But around the middle of the 20th century an interesting new trend emerged and has since become increasingly established. Evolutionary theorists have been forced, step by step, to steadily retreat from the evidence in the field. Some of the evidences mentioned earlier in this article were demonstrated to be frauds and hoaxes. Other discoveries have been a blow to the straightforward expectations and predictions of evolutionists. Increasingly, they have been forced to tack ad hoc mechanisms onto Darwin’s theory to accomodate the evidence. Their retreat to unfalsifiable positions is now evident in every arena where they once triumphed. Let us examine how Darwinian theorists have moved from concrete predictions and scientifically observable supporting evidences to metaphysical positions in several key fields of research...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Then it should be easy for you to explain why we find no trilobites above the Permian strata, and why we find no dinosaurs above the cretaceous strata, or no mammals in the Cambrian strata?
tens of thousands of published papers, and you have what.. a half dozen chapters at the beginning of the bible?
You also believe Ezekiel was entertaining Aliens for dinner?
That's a real issue with evolutionists. They like to blame God too much. They think that they know better than Him.
Is it God's fault that men misinterpret the world around them?
Why.. this must mean that the Earth is 6000 years old
and that dinosaurs rode on the Ark! Shazzam!
It did go the way of Alchemy... you just refuse to read the memo...
“You also believe Ezekiel was entertaining Aliens for dinner?.”
No, and thanks for validating my point.
By definition.
No, it’s man’s fault that people like you believe in such a small god.
Thanks for the ping!
Ours is number 7, and the entity had adjusted the weak and strong force such that water would expand when frozen, and that did the trick.
The Creator is working on no. seven now.
Of course, you can. Those are two separate texts. It is not inconsistent to read them in different manners if one text is intended to be read literally and the other figuratively. The Bible is composed of books of several different literary styles each of which should be read as it is intended to be read.
Just because someone believes that the Genesis is to be read literally doesn't require that they believe that all of Daniel, Ezekiel, Revelation, etc. is to be read literally, as well.
As an LGF liberal, xcamel is offended by conservative Christians employing an historical-grammatical hermeneutic to determine original intent in the Bible.
More specifically, natural selection. Populations of microorganisms are not uniform. There is always some spectrum of properties. For example, certain virions of HIV may have a mutated protease. A lucky mutation (lucky for from the point of view of the virus, of course) makes a drug molecule incompatible with the receptor. Other viruses do not proliferate, but the lucky one does and starts a new population, passing on the favorable mutation. The effect of this mutation may be then amplified by subsequent mutations/natural selection.
But the question wasn't about natural selection. It was about speciation.
I don't see that any creationists deny variation within species or natural selection. The folks at AiG and CRI don't, which you'd know if you ever bothered to read what they have to say.
The issue most creationists have with evolution is that enough change is possible to create entirely new species. The kinds of major changes that evolutionists insist occurred to get from bacteria, to trilobites, to dinosaurs, to birds and mammals.
That includes major changes in the number of chromosomes in many cases, and I have yet to be informed of any changes in the number of chromosomes which has not had a deleterious effect on the individual in which it occurs.
Looks like "attacking and lying about science" with falsehoods to me.
Example:
Evolutionists have shown little interest in precise population genetics modelling.
BS...those that are Population Geneticists/Biologists that have spent their entire lives doing just that would disagree.
Calling every scientist out there an "evolutionist" so you can claim "See, evolutionists say (fill in the blank)"....is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty. Sorry, math-theorists, physicists, electrical engineers...these are not "evolutionists."
There's a reason why creationists cling to Haldane's dilemma, while the rest of the world has already shown his calculatino to be false....hint...the calculation contains invalid assumptions and limits.
Nothing more than an irrational dismissal of many fields of science.
It has worked perfectly for all of God’s children since the day he created us.
As for the rest, they are irrelevant, are they not?
It's your problem, not mine. I stated that evolutionary biology explains drug resistance. Natural selection - a key concept in evolutionary biology, is the mechanism of developing such resistance.
I take responsibility for what I actually write, not for what you guys want me to write to come up with some lame 'gotcha'.
ROTFLOL!!!!!
Great question. It’s the MSM of course, or the Marxists in the universities.
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.