Posted on 05/03/2010 6:22:25 AM PDT by Need4Truth
A major storm of protest against the myth of evolution has been building for many years, as proved by almost a thousand major scientists, all with doctorates who have signed on to the following statement as of 2010: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
Those scientists threw down the gauntlet to evolutionists by publishing a two-page ad in a national magazine with the heading, “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.” Fevered, fanatical, and foolish evolutionists will charge that those dissenting scientists were backwoods yokels (maybe even a few snake handlers and flat earthers mixed in) dug up by pushy creationists to promote their cause. Not so, I have gone over the list and if certification and accreditation are so important, impressive, and indispensable, then those people will give evolutionists a perpetual heartburn.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
What’s the difference between a cat and a dog?
A few strands of DNA? Retractable claws?
For example, are dogs closer to us or Chimps?
A dog can understand many human clues and non-verbal communication, but a chimp won’t.
Peer Review isn't what it used to be.
They will get their panties in a knot. No doubt you will be called:
- an atheist
- a contributor to the Daily Kos
- a communist
- a troll
And they will be desperately searching your profile to find out when you joined Freep. If they judge you too new (it's a sliding scale) then you will be condemned for that too.
None of this, of course, has anything to do with the merits or demerits of the argument.
So do these 1000 scientists AGREE on an alternative to Evolution? It is one thing to say “you’re wrong”. It is another to say “you’re wrong and here is a better theory that fits”.
Until a better theory is stated Evolution will be the champ.
What do you mean by saying you are an evolutionist... is there a concrete definition, or is the definition itself an “evolving” concept? And, is “evolving” considered a self directed activity, or is it an activity that is directed from an outside force, AND is “mind” involved whether self or outside force directed? Math is good an’ all, but it does require mind; could the first cause have been the result of mind; can mind exist if mind never existed?
A chimp cannot fathom what you mean if you point to a treat. A dog can. I’ve tried that with my dog. I silently point to a treat and he follows the line traced by my finger and trots right over there.
How long before the “young earth” theorists show up?
“It is therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations”
One also supposes anti-biotic resistant bacteria were made by God to “keep us on our toes” and positive mutations had no role to play.
Where science goes wrong is when they try to find meaning behind their discoveries. Your statement (which I agree with BTW) is an interpretation of the data. To say what we see is just the result of random chance is ALSO an interpretation of the data. I think our interpretation if more rational when you consider the odds.
“What’s the difference between a cat and a dog?”
The first question says it all. Yeah, you can muddy the waters with DNA analysis, or basic traits, but the bottom line is, a cat is a cat, a dog is a dog. When you can breed cats and yeild dogs, or vice versa, let me know.
According to modern science, there isn’t much difference between a human and pond scum, just a few strands of DNA. I submit “a few strands of DNA” is a huge difference. Pretty remarkable design isn’t it? Or is it a happy accident?
Going on to enumerate traits of other species and what makes them like, or unlike us is non sequitar.
You can breed a lion and a tiger and get an animal that’s sterile. You can breed a horse and a donkey and get an animal that’s sterile. Nature doesn’t seem to be setup for this evolution thing.
Believe as you like, I’m not interested in converting anyone to my belief system, just offering my observations.
I’m sure the current crop of leftist/atheist/”brights” think they are so clever to have come up with the whole
“if you believe in creationism, you are ignorant of science” line of argument...
wait...
John Bunyan wrote nearly those exact words (Pilgrim’s Progress)
THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY YEARS AGO.
Meanwhile ignore that over 12,000 CLERGY signed a petition that said “We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests.”
http://blue.butler.edu/~mzimmerm/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm
Creationism is a MYTH and this website sums it up.
“None of this, of course, has anything to do with the merits or demerits of the argument.”
Ironcially, by the 23rd post, you are the only one to mention the “credentials” of the poster. The rest have just debated on the nature of science, or why they believe what they believe.
Enough of that reality check, rant away.
The truth of the matter is that the more educated someone is, the less likely they are to be a creationist.
It is obvious that creationists sources know this and they “play to their audience”, their audience being on average less educated, and less knowledgeable about science.
And it is obvious.
IOW you accept the opinion of clergy over scientists on matters involving science. LOL
OK, Darwinism is not a myth. It's a cult.
BTW, saying it is impossible for life to have come about as the Darwinist dogmatically insist that it did is not the same as advocating Young Earth Creationism.
First such a position betrays a fundamental ignorance as to how evolution actually works.
Secondly, a Tigon and a Tiger successfully reproduce to make a TiTigon. Many cross breed “mules” do have problems with fertility, but many can and do successfully reproduce.
Now what species crossbreeds having fertility problems or having offspring has to do with a population evolving by change in allele frequency in response to selective pressure I really have no idea.
But perhaps you can “enlighten” us with what bizarre and preposterous B.S. you don't “believe in” but call evolution, even though it doesn't have even a passing resemblance to the actual theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.
ah, yes...
“proof by condescension”
is a “valid argument” every time.
And humans are apes.
But I should have been more clear, specifically they bred the Crucian Carp to make Goldfish.
That’s a little along the lines of breeding terriers to get Yorkshire terriers.
Carp are a family of fish not a specices, so it's more like how Humans came from Chimps but both are still in the same familiy Hominidae (Great Apes)
When they breed carp and get an iguana, or a cardinal, then I’ll have to reconsider my beliefs.
I have little doubt that even if evolution allowed for such a thing and they did it, you would move the goal post again.
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.