Posted on 08/31/2011 8:16:15 PM PDT by RonDog
LIBERALS' VIEW OF DARWIN UNABLE TO EVOLVE
August 31, 2011Amid the hoots at Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry for saying there were "gaps" in the theory of evolution, the strongest evidence for Darwinism presented by these soi-disant rationalists was a 9-year-old boy quoted in The New York Times.
After his mother had pushed him in front of Perry on the campaign trail and made him ask if Perry believed in evolution, the trained seal beamed at his Wicked Witch of the West mother, saying, "Evolution, I think, is correct!"
That's the most extended discussion of Darwin's theory to appear in the mainstream media in a quarter-century. More people know the precepts of kabala than know the basic elements of Darwinism.
There's a reason the Darwin cult prefers catcalls to argument, even with a 9-year-old at the helm of their debate team.
Darwin's theory was that a process of random mutation, sex and death, allowing the "fittest" to survive and reproduce, and the less fit to die without reproducing, would, over the course of billions of years, produce millions of species out of inert, primordial goo.
The vast majority of mutations are deleterious to the organism, so if the mutations were really random, then for every mutation that was desirable, there ought to be a staggering number that are undesirable.
Otherwise, the mutations aren't random, they are deliberate -- and then you get into all the hocus-pocus about "intelligent design" and will probably start speaking in tongues and going to NASCAR races.
We also ought to find a colossal number of transitional organisms in the fossil record -- for example, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.)
But that's not what the fossil record shows. We don't have fossils for any intermediate creatures in the process of evolving into something better. This is why the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard referred to the absence of transitional fossils as the "trade secret" of paleontology. (Lots of real scientific theories have "secrets.") Read More
I'm not saying I like it, but I've accepted the fact that intelligent design is our side's version of man-made global warming, except without the taxation and authoritarian government control.
I wish we weren't the party of creationism, but what to do. I'm open to your ideas.
Every single specimen in the fossil record is a transitional fossil, including your bones and mine when we die.
“There is more than sufficient evidence for evolution..”
Is it hidden away in Algore’s lockbox?
Very well written!
Freaking brilliant, I’d say. This is one of darling Ann’s finest works!
Why haven’t we found tails on our ancestors?
They are "scheisse-entists".
If you’re looking for understanding of the Theory of Evolution or a cogent discussion of it, I’m afraid you will find most members on this forum sorely lacking.
You wrote: “...I’ve accepted the fact that intelligent design is our side’s version of man-made global warming, except without the taxation and authoritarian government control. I wish we weren’t the party of creationism, but what to do...”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2764897/posts?page=487#487
Back to circular reasoning. Making a sweeping claim like that requires proof, and genetic evidence demonstrates the contrary.
Every single specimen in the fossil record is a transitional fossil
It is a scientific fact that for mankind to continue its existence it requires one male and one female. So, working backwards from what we know today as scientific fact, describe just a few of the steps necessary to go from where we are today to where we basically “emerged from the swamp” 16 billion years ago. Going backwards from the present, you will need to include the following at a minimum:
1. What was the evolutionary step just prior to the male having testes, a penis, a prostate, sperm, and a urethra.
2. What was the evolutionary step just prior to the male being able to attain a penile erection?
3. What was the evolutionary step just prior to the female having a vagina, fallopian tubes, ovaries, eggs, and a womb?
4. What was the evolutionary step just prior to the female having formed breasts in order to feed her babies?
5. What was the evolutionary step just prior to a male being physically and sexually attract to a female?
6. What was the evolutionary step just prior to multiple sperm being required to attack the egg so that one sperm can “get in” so it can fertilize the egg. (By the way, I think this is why males like team sports. :) )
7. What was the evolutionary step just prior to the fish-like, swimming sperm being propelled with a defined force from the male’s penis during ejaculation?
There are probably many more questions you should be able to answer, but these seven are probably enough at this point. Oh - and these seven questions would need to be answered for every form of life on earth that requires a male and female for procreation. Including strawberries.
Looking forward to your detailed, considerate, scientific, credible, logical, rational, convincing, and reasonable response.
Thanks.
I happen to be a YEC because I accept what the biblical texts say on the face of it, along with the claim of those texts that our Creator inspired them precisely because it is fitting to know whence one came and whither one is going. But, in the interest of civility, and because we have too much in common, I am not about to denigrate those in this forum who reject the biblical texts. I can only hope they will return the favor. If they don't it is no loss to me.
Interesting how the bulk of geology tends toward aquatic activity. I don't suppose a certain flood has anything to do with it. Ha!
And one more thing: no Darwinist should be a detective as they have a difficult time seeing the clues.
When Monsignor Lemaitre was crafting the Big Bang theory, he didn't concern himself with such questions. When the Pope tried to use his theory to confirm Genesis, he voiced his objection.
I think the same thinking can apply to religious people like yourself, and while I don't personally subscribe to non-overlapping magisteria, it's probably the best way to approach the 'why' question.
The fraud of Man-made Global Warming exposes the fraud of Darwinism.
Both theories are accepted as axiomatic (dogma) by their followers, and skepticism is ridiculed.
What part of this nation's standard do you wish to erase.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Creation is NOT an 'ism', never has been and never will be. YOU can return to the party of 'ism'.
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.