Posted on 09/24/2001 1:12:24 PM PDT by ThinkPlease
Tonight is the beginning of the Evolution Series on PBS. I thought I'd open up some threads of discussion here prior, during and after the telecast of the episodes.
Here's PBS's homepage for the telecast:
And Here's something from the Discovery Institute, who is evidently irritated about turning down free publicity on the telecast. (They were offered time on the final night of the telecast, and turned down PBS.)
The above is what is called an evolutionist concession. When they are shown definite proof against their theory they slime the person who proved them wrong.
When asked for proof you call me names. There is no proof that species are constantly in transition. As I have stated before there are numerous species that have been around for hundreds of millions of years: the shark, the coelacanth and the blowfish to mention a few. In addition we have numerous fossils from widely different regions tens of millions of years apart which show absolutely no transition within the species. If evolution were true such a thing would be impossible, therefore there is ample proof against evolution the fossil record which the lying evos constantly say proves evolution shows the exact opposite of what they state.
There is nothing in the theory of evolution that requires that every species evolve. If a species is successful as is in its environment, it will remain as is. Please go and learn a little something about evolutionary theory before coming up with such laughable arguments. There are a number of good books on the subject.
I do not disagree that a gene has to be beneficial.That is the problem I was pointing at. Not only is it hard to create any kind of working gene, it has to have in addition a beneficial purpose and do something better than what another gene may be already be doing. This increases the odds against evolution occurring by random chance by an even greater extent because a large proportion of functional genes which might have occurred would be discarded. So your statement above really increases the odds against evolution rather than decreasing them.
Well, in fact, the theory does exist,
This is utter doubletalk. On one hand the evolutionists say that the fossil record proves evolution, on the other hand they say that anything could have been related to anything else and the bones can't show the relationship.
You are missing the point completely. If evolution were true, practically all bones would be transitional bones. Practically all bones would be different from each other and show small differences from any other bone found. The fossil record does not show that at all. It shows many species lasting long periods of time. It shows them to stay the same for long periods of time. This would be impossible if evolution was true.
An appropriate post . . . for an idiot.
Just post the Bible instead of pretending that you're interested in science!
This is so silly. It must be supposed that repeating this nonsense enough times will make it so. 140 years is long enough. And Einstein only had to write E = mc2 once.
Another short lesson on science:
1. Someone thinks things work a particular way and comes up with an hyposthesis.
2. Then they or someone else checks the facts and the evidence.
3. If the evidence doesn't support, the hypothesis is thrown out.
Ergo, Darwin should have been thrown out long ago.
The main evidence against evolution that I'm aware of is that no one can make a creationist see the evidence for it.
ID is basically a critique of evolution. It is a question that evolution cannot answer. It is therefore a refutation of evolution. Just like the evolutionists slime those here who disagree and show proof, you and other evolutionists slime those in the intelligent design community who give proof which evolutionists cannot refute.
Leaving aside your obvious error of lumping all "evolutionists" into one category, I shall answer that: God. But then that answer wouldn't fit with your repeated either/or assertions about Christianity/evolution.
Okay, let's take your thoughts a little further. So then, God created the world is that correct? Then the Bible is true and His statements that he created man, the universe and all living things is correct?
If you don't though, the question that needs to be answered is: if God is going around enforcing all these natural laws, how can you leave Him out from creating new species, new life? After all, if there is a God it would be ludicrous to say that life arose from inanimate matter, something which all the "natural laws" which you say govern the universe have never even remotely been shown to have been able to do.
Cite: Is this another of your B.S. claims that you'll not prove?
Of course you ignore the proof already given about his well known close cooperation with the atheists Huxley and Haeckel (for proof of that just read the introduction to the Descent of Man). Unlike the evolutionists, I give proof for my statements. I do not go around through dozens of threads avoiding giving proof. Here is is:
"P.S. Would you advise me to tell Murray [his publisher] that my book is not more un-orthodox than the subject makes inevitable. That I do not discuss the origin of man. That I do not bring in any discussion about Genesis, &c, &c., and only give facts, and such conclusions from them as seem to me fair.
Or had I better say nothing to Murray, and assume that he cannot object to this much unorthodoxy, which in fact is not more than any Geological Treatise which runs sharp counter to Genesis."
From: Daniel J. Boorstein, The Discoverers, page 475.
If you even wish for additional proof, look at the following article from an evolutionist in a current post right here on FreeRepublic:Saving Us From Darwin
I will also be expecting an apology from you for calling me a slimer for telling the truth about your atheist hero.
Another sore evo loser! Not what I would call a gentlemanly concession of a point - but a concession nevertheless!
But you have problems with facts, truths, and reality, don't you? "Our Invisible Buddy who Lives in the Sky"
isn't keeping track of your posts. Disproving "Darwinism" doesn't make the Creation myth accurate.
There is more evidence for the hypothesis of evolution than any competing scientific theory, thus it stands.
Only you can say. After all, you decided to take my statement out of context in your initial post to me. And I truly find it hard to believe you don't understand what a week is or that you lack the mathematical skills to calculate the probabilities for the two cases that trouble you.
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.