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 ...
I guess if they type louder, it will make them more right...
I believe the bible makes it plain enough how the world was made. What I can’t believe is how upset and hateful the evolutionists become when creationism is presented. Evolution is a religion with its own set of beliefs. Unfortunately, they only have the spirit of the devil to persuade their behavior.
In the wild days of the internets they used to call the statement you just made “going cartoony” - I guess it still applies.
What you are talking about, darwin referred to as diversification. We see this in cats, dogs, all kinds of species will adapt to conform with their natural environment.
The same phenomenon is responsible for drug resistance. However, this is different then say a virii transforming into a bacillus, which is what evolution insists we ought to see.
Darwin assumes that diversification eventually leads to the transformation of species, but cannot prove his assertion.
Is it my contention that the vast majority of biblical scholars disagree with [you and] literal creationism.
Try to read the statement correctly and stop wasting everyone else’s time.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Scroll down to 5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation.
Some crops are found in a variety of ploidy. Apples, tulips and lilies are commonly found as both diploid and as triploid. Daylilies (Hemerocallis) cultivars are available as either diploid or tetraploid. Kinnows can be tetraploid, diploid, or triploid.
Except, many have died because of D’s theories.
<><><><><><
Name one. Who died directly because of Darwin’s theory.
Perhaps there is someone who was bonked on the head by a copy of Origin of Species, fell down a flight of steps, and died as a result of their injuries, but beyond that ... sorry.
Pol Pot never once stood over someone in the killing fields and said “I kill you in the name of Charles Darwin”.
And if they ignore the questions they cannot answer it has the same effect
Over the past several years the news and science writers have had a number of “supports” for evolution found, Ida, Ardi, Millennium Man, Lucy. What can these fossils tell us about ourselves? Indeed what can any fossil tell us about ourselves?
From an unbiased (not biased TOWARD creationism by any measure):
“Paleontology, read as history is additionally unscientific because, without testable hypothesis, its statements rely for their justification on authority, as if its practitioners had privileged access to absolute truth....”
If you want to know who said that I'll tell you in my reply so you can judge the words on their merits and not the source.
egg-zactly.
Even better is when they only respond to a small portion of a post, adding stupidity to abject ignorance.
Only evolutionists demand that creationists behave in such a way and tell others they do. Lying about them is the only way they can find to try to discredit them.
I've never met such a literature and grammar challenged group of people in my life.
==Is it my contention that the vast majority of biblical scholars disagree with [you and] literal creationism.
First, if you knew anything at all about biblical interpretation, you would know that the historical-grammatical method is different than biblical literalism. The vast majority of biblical scholars (to include biblical creationists) employ the historical-grammatical method to arrive at original intent, whereas I have never even heard of a biblical scholar that employs a strictly literal interpretation of scripture. That’s not to say that they don’t exist, but if any do exist, they are so rare I have never even heard of them. Indeed, even most old earth creationists use the historical-grammatical approach in virtually all other books EXCEPT Genesis...which they tend to throw out in deference to the ever-shifting opinions of mere mortals (so long as they are dressed up in white lab coats.
Specific examples, then, please.
So... as for you.... Genisis: Literal or not?
Think very hard before you answer.
And no, you don’t get an existential get-out-of-the-question-free Hermeneutical caveat like “maybe”.
Dear Behemoth, I won’t pretend to be scientific but please do lighten up. After all, we will all turn to dust one day and then we will know which of us was right.
See my post #89.
I am personally impressed by the clear and concise explanation GGG has provided as to 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
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.