Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
Things aren't always what they appear to be.
The only habitual name-callers here are the evolutionists - they insult the Bible, they insult God, they insult fundamentalists, they insult everyone who disagrees with them. However I have not heard you say a word about them. In fact in the very next post - which has been reported for abuse - you do some pretty viscious name calling yourself. My calling Darwin a charlatan is not name calling, it is a statement of fact as I shall hereby show:
One of the most interesting things about the Origin of the Species is that it gives proof of nothing:
he cannot prove it, but please believe him.
All these causes taken conjointly, must have tended to make the geological record extremely imperfect, and will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps.
He cannot prove it but it's true:
We should not be able to recognise a species as the parent of any one or more species if we were to examine them ever so closely, unless we likewise possessed many of the intermediate links between their past or parent and present states; and these many links we could hardly ever expect to discover, owing to the imperfection of the geological record.
There is no proof but I believe I am correct:
it deserves especial notice that the more important objections relate to questions on which we are confessedly ignorant; nor do we know how ignorant we are. We do not know all the possible transitional gradations between the simplest and the most perfect organs; it cannot be pretended that we know all the varied means of Distribution during the long lapse of years, or that we know how imperfect the Geological Record is. Grave as these several difficulties are, in my judgment
In the future I will be proven right (like Miss Cleo?):
Species and groups of species, which are called aberrant, and which may fancifully be called living fossils, will aid us in forming a picture of the ancient forms of life. Embryology will reveal to us the structure, in some degree obscured, of the prototypes of each great class.
Contradicting what he said before of living fossils:
Judging from the past, we may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity.
Both sides prove me right:
it follows, that the amount of organic change in the fossils of consecutive formations probably serves as a fair measure of the lapse of actual time. A number of species, however, keeping in a body might remain for a long period unchanged, whilst within this same period, several of these species, by migrating into new countries and coming into competition with foreign associates, might become modified; so that we must not overrate the accuracy of organic change as a measure of time.
The future again:
In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches.
Glorification of war and death:
Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life
You prove the eye did not evolve
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.
Of course, the great "scientist" Darwin has also been proven wrong numerous times by real science:
1. His racist brachyo-cephalic index for lower species has been shown to be a farce.
2. His numerous statements on apes being the progenitor of man have been shown to be false.
3. His theory that the characteristics of each parent "melded" in the children was proven wrong by Mendellian genetics.
4. The fossil record, 150 years later still does not show gradual evolution.
5. His hero, Malthus, the original chicken little, has been proven wrong by the tenfold increase in humanity while nutrition improved.
So yes, I have plenty of reasons to call Darwin a charlatan. The biggest one of these reasons being that he never gave an iota of proof for macro-evolution and that now, 150 years later, the proof looks even less likely to ever be found than it was when he made his totally unfounded assumption.
I have never used the Bible as proof that evolution is false. This is just a total strawman presented to both attack me and attack Christianity. I do say that there is no way that life could have arisen without a Creator and that once one knows that life itself was created it is totally ridiculous to believe that an almost total impossibility - the evolution of millions of species, with billions of different genes occurred through the agency of a mindless "force" called 'survival of the fittest'. In fact, if one listens to this discussion carefully one sees that the evolutionists, in order to support their theory have to provide their misterious "force" with almost godlike qualities!
If it did, he would have been able to show the bones properly classified as such. He has given quite a few excuses not to do so, you are providing one more excuse. However, neither one of you has given the proof. And no, your Java Man which suddenly morphed into a homo erectus dated some 200,000 years more recently thanks to some animal bones found near the site decades later does not count.
I believe very much in science. That is one of the reasons I do not believe in evolution. I know that science proves its theories, but as you can see in these threads, each time I ask for proof of evolution or some facts of it, I am told that science proves nothing. The evolutionists are prostituting the good name of science (as well as attacking Christianity) with their materialistic/atheistic ideology.
No argument on that point.
Really? I have not seen a single Christian say that the proof that evolution is false is because "Goddidit" as you evolutionists constantly mock. However, I have seen plenty of evolutionists - including you - say that evolution must be true because the answer to a question can never be God. Now that is circular reasoning, not reasoning at all.
I asked for an example of a prediction (i.e. something that is predicted, i.e. to declare or state in advance) made via evolutionary theory and you replied birds don't have mammary glands and frogs don't have feathers. Answers like this are among the things that have caused me to become skeptical of evolution.
Let me try using evolutionary theory to make a prediction: New England will beat St. Louis in Super Bowl XXXVI. On a last second field goal. HEY. IT WORKS.
Let me make another prediction. If a bird with boobs is ever found, evolutionists will declare it to be proof of evolution. And if this bird species was observed to evolve, say in a flock kept in captivity, and it was fertile but was unable to be bred with its relatives, and the species eventually evolved into a bat, I would pretty much accept macro-evolution.
But the objective and undeniable truth is that this has never been observed.
"Rhodesian Man", Homo sapiens (archaic) (was Homo rhodesiensis) Discovered by a laborer in 1921 at Broken Hill in Northern Rhodesia (now Kabwe in Zambia) (Woodward 1921). This was a complete cranium that was very robust, with large brow ridges and a receding forehead. Estimated age is between 200,000 and 125,000 years. The brain size was about 1280 cc. (Creationist arguments)
Perhaps the most remarkable feature of this fossil is that it was found about sixty feet underground at the far end of a shaft in a lead and zinc mine. He was either mining lead and zinc himself or was in the mine shaft at a time when lead and zinc were being mined by other humans -- indicating a very high degree of civilization and technology.
Now, let's look at the so-called proof.
1. It is from an unsigned article in TalkOrigins, not exactly what one calls a source of scientific excellence.
2. Even this author says that the dating can be anywhere from 200,000 years ago to 125,000 years ago. The earliest date for homo sapiens is 100,000 years ago.
3. This is by the admission of the author a "re-classified" fossil, it was homo rhodensis, not homo erectus before the evolutionists needed an erectus to show continuity to homo sapiens after Neanderthal was blown out of the water.
Now Vade, anywhere, with three strikes you are out. However, the best is yet to come:
4. "He was either mining lead and zinc himself or was in the mine shaft at a time when lead and zinc were being mined by other humans". Now this is why this article, this author and TalkOrigins are a total joke. There was absolutely no metallurgy 125,000 years ago. There was no metallurgy 50,000 years ago. There were no mines then at all. There were no cities, there was no civilization. In other words, either the dating is totally bogus, the fossil is a complete fake, or this was some poor soul which got thrown down a mineshaft a few thousand years ago. Whatever the answer, this is not an ancestor of homo sapiens.
"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.
There is a powerful line of evidence showing that species with mammary glands give life birth - all known mammals except the monotremes. Nevertheless life is far more bountiful, far more different, than your ideology provides for. This is only partially about mammaries in dinosaurs. The main point is that paleontology is circular reasoning, it is a self-fullfilling prophecy. It never finds anything new, because it is predicting from the old. It gives assurances of similarity, when very little is indeed known. Whole species, entire skeletons, beautiful drawings, missing links are created from a tooth, a broken skull, a few ankle bones, or a jaw. Paleontology is not science, it is fairy tales. As to the professionalism of these jokers, just look at my post on the Dinosaur and the Turkey sandwich.
They sure are! And each time we are told that this is the last time. Each time we are told that such and such a bone is definite, certain proof of some marvelous evolutionist facts. And then, when no one is looking, when the cameras and the newspapermen are away, in the middle of the night, the bones are revived into another totally different species. Thanks for proving my point (not that it needed any further proof) that paleontology is a joke.
Circular reasoning. Using evolution to prove its own claims. You can only prove evolution with facts - which you have already admitted you do not have any of in this matter.
The framework predicts that animals with mammary glands are live bearing. The framework has been proven wrong by living species - the platypus and the echidna. The framework is that evolution is chasing its tail and making excuses for not being able to prove its assertions.
Oh yes, we should not say that evolution's facts are false. heaven forbid. We must put all evidence against it in a deep Orwellian memory hole. Of course, that does not apply to you. You still keep arguing subjects you have been thoroughly shown to be wrong about (such as proof for no mammary glands on dinosaurs).
Actually something quite similar did happen with archaeopteryx. They declared this dinosaur with feathers the missing link between reptiles and birds. Problem is that archaeopteryx died out tens of millions of years before birds came around. Even evolutionists with all their double-talk could not get past the fact that dead species do not reproduce.
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.