Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing

The American Prowler ^ | 11/24/04 | Hunter Baker

[neoconsareright]

WACO, Texas -- At one time, the debate over Darwin's theory existed as a cartoon in the modern imagination. Thanks to popular portrayals of the Scopes Trial, secularists regularly reviewed the happy image of Clarence Darrow goading William Jennings Bryan into agreeing to be examined as an expert witness on the Bible and then taking him apart on the stand.

[go_W_go]

...and discovered you haven't been quite straightforward about his views.

My point was the he doesn't believe that Archaeopteryx, which was the subject if you remember, is a "transition"... So, no, I haven't attempted to deceive anyone, my point was that even evolutionary scientists no longer buy the "Archaeopteryx is a transition" line anymore!

Thank you, drive thru...

[go_W_go]

So why don't YOU show how "intelligent design" has successfully predicted ANY scientific discovery or piece of data. Evolutionary theory has and continues to do so.

You show me yours, I'll show you mine. The continuing pattern seems to be "oh yeah, well I'll one up you". Neither you, nor any of your fantasy believing cohorts can do what you are asking me to do. However, I can... Ready?

1. Science STILL cannot explain the sudden explosion of life on earth. Genesis, however, gives the only plausible explanation.

2. Prophetic Evidence: Still don't believe the Bible's true? The Bible records predictions of events that could not have been known or predicted by chance (a farcical nuance you evolutionist types seem to cling to) or common sense. Surprisingly, the predictive nature of many Bible passages was once a popular argument against the reliability of the Bible. Critics argued that various passages were written later than the biblical texts indicated because they recounted events that happened sometimes hundreds of years later than when they were supposedly written. They concluded that, subsequent to the events, literary editors went back and "doctored" the original, nonpredictive texts. But this is simply WRONG! Careful research AFFIRMS the predictive accuracy of the Bible. For example, the book of Daniel (written before 530 B.C.) ACCURATELY predicts the progression of kingdoms from Babylon through the Medo-Persian Empire, the Greek Empire, and then the Roman Empire, culminating in the persecution and suffering of the Jews under Antiochus IV Epiphanes, his desecration of the temple, his untimely death, and freedom for the Jews under Judas Maccabeus (165 B.C.).
Old Testament prophecies concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre were fulfilled in ancient times, including prophecies that the city would be opposed by many nations (Ezek. 26:3); it's walls would be destroyed and towers broken down (26:4); and it's stones, timbers, and debris would be thrown into the water(26:12). Similar prophecies were fulfilled concerning Sidon (Ezek. 28:23; Isa. 23; Jer. 27:3-6; 47:4) and Babylon (Jer. 50:13, 39; 51:26, 42, 43, 58; Isa. 13:20, 21).
Since Christ is the culminating theme of the Old Testament and the Living Word of the New Testament, it should not surprise us that prophecies regarding Him outnumber all others. Many of these prophecies would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to deliberately conspire to fulfill, such as His descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 12:3; 17:19); His birth in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2); His crucifixion with criminals (Isa. 53:12); the piercing of his hands and feet on the cross (Psalms 22:16); the soldiers gambling for His clothes (Psalms 22:18); the piercing of His side and the fact that His bones were not broken at His death (Zech. 12:10; Ps. 34:20); and His burial among the rich (Isa. 53:9). Jesus also predicted His own death and resurrection (John 2:19-22).

Or how about Sir William Ramsay, a trained archaeologist who set out to disprove the historical reliability of the book of Luke? Through his painstaking Mediterranean archaeological trips, he became converted as, one after another, the historical allusions of Luke were PROVED accurate! Truly, with every turn of the archaeologists spade, we continue to see evidence for the trustworthiness of Scripture.

Any more questions? Ask away...

[go_W_go]

It's up to the "challenger" theory to prove itself. Evolution is accepted science

BTW, evolution has always been, and still is the "challenger", no one on this thread has posted any evidence to the contrary.

[VadeRetro]

I'm confronting you with the fossil record...

Where?

So I posted in-line to you a skeleton of Archy showing unfused forelimb bones, a jaw with teeth, and a long bony tail, dinosaurian features not to be seen on the plow-blade-keeled pigeon and parrot offered for comparison. Then I linked you a source showing how various life forms converge as you go back in time, and coincidentally showing evolution crossing major taxon boundaries in amphibians-reptiles, reptiles-mammals, the horse series, etc. Then I linked you the same kind of evidence for the bird series in response to a specific request for evidence, posting two pics in-line.

And you don't know where I confronted you with the fossil record. Well, you're a par for the course creationist. That's exactly what I said creationism is: the science of not knowing things.

I'm feeling good tonight, so have another one.

The Fossil Record.

I don't mind wasting my time. That I am wasting my time is what makes it interesting for me. You're totally evidence-proof. Totally. And too bullet-proof delusional to know it.

[Junior]

My point was the he doesn't believe that Archaeopteryx, which was the subject if you remember, is a "transition"...

That's not what I got out of either the quote you posted nor the items I found. Methinks you're reading stuff into this that ain't there.

[go_W_go]

"Punctuated equilibrium was actually predicted by Darwin

Wrong. Punctuated equilibrium has it's "genesis" (haha) with a German geneticist named Richard Goldschmidt. Realizing there was NO compelling evidence for evolution in the fossil record, Goldschmidt speculated that there must have been quantum leaps from one species to another. In his book "The Material Basis of Evolution", he sums up his sentiments as follows, "The major evolutionary advances must have taken place in single large steps... The many missing links in the paleontological record are sought for in vain because they have never existed; 'the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.'" With that logic, each time a human woman gives birth, we should all cringe in fear that the "infant" born may fly away, or worse eat and kill us all....


and does not refute evolution"

No, punctuated equilibrium does not refute evolution, it was made up after the first batch of lies didn't stand up.

[VadeRetro]

No, but I can point you to his book and instruct you to actually read it. Darwin himself was not sure of his theory, and in fact Darwinism has been rejected by most scientists. Neo-Darwinism reigned for a short time and now there is the theory of Punctuated equilibrium.

You need to read it, not just the ICR/AiG strawman characterizations thereof. While he posed one rhetorical question after another which has been dishonestly quote-mined by Holy Warrior idiots who imagine themselves allowed to lie in a good cause, he was in fact totally confident of his conclusions. It's in there; you haven't read it.

He also anticipated punctutated equilibrium to an extent not appreciated by PE founders Gould and Eldredge. I'm sure this will be news to you as well.

[Labyrinthos]

Amen

[go_W_go]

Here's the problem. Every time I give you "scientifically accepted" evidence, you come up with some left field retort that even the likes of Steven J. Gould wouldn't defend...

Research, research, research...

You still haven't shown any evidence... I'm waiting...

BTW, I guess you don't know anything about Cliffy... You should do more research (like I said above)

[VadeRetro]

"Punctuated equilibrium was actually predicted by Darwin.

Wrong. Punctuated equilibrium has it's "genesis" (haha) with a German geneticist named Richard Goldschmidt.

No, and you're really stinking up the joint with your misstatements. Again here's the case for what Junior just said (about Darwin anticipating PE).

All You Need to Know About Punctuated Equilibrium (Amost).

And here's an even more basic "For Dummies" version, which you need if you think it's the Goldschmidt "Hopeful Monster" theory.

Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium.

You're 0 for everything on this thread, but you're still screaming away. That's religious fanaticism.

[go_W_go]

deny, deny, deny... The truth is out there.

One question... do you always get your "research" from newspaper articles?

That's not scientific like...

[microgood]

There is strong evidence the first multicellar sexual critters were hermaphroditic (some simple multicellulars still are). Over generations, some began to specialize, as it were.

Interesting, but how would the male and female sexual organs that work together in perfect harmony mutate equally and at the same time. Would not one wrong mutation result in the extinction of the species since it can no longer reproduce? Like the eye and the leg (vice fin), this is hardest part of evolutionary theory to believe.

[go_W_go]

Well, it's been real.

I've got a long day ahead of me tomorrow, and while spending the last 4 hours or so has been fun, (why no one is willing to answer the hard questions is beyond me), I bid you all a happy Thanksgiving. I'll read more of the rhetorical stuff later...

[VadeRetro]

Here's the problem. Every time I give you "scientifically accepted" evidence, you come up with some left field retort that even the likes of Steven J. Gould wouldn't defend...

You've given me nothing but creationist quote-mine BS. Feduccia is an evolutionist who takes the unpopular and rather poorly evidenced view that birds diverged from reptiles at a farther back point than most scientists think necessary, likely, or supportable. That doesn't help you very much, really.

Chatterjee is a guy with an ambitious claim who refuses to allow independent examination of the basis for his claim. By most accounts, he has overreached. He isn't is creationist either.

You have cited no evidence. You are just sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming falsehoods. You said the only thing supposedly transitional about Archaeopteryx was its lack of a sternum. That was wrong and you have not acknowledged it as integrity would demand if you had any integrity.

I mean, the teeth, unfused forelimb bones, bony tail ... what does it take?

I'm not going to run down the whole list. You've just said two wrong things in a row about punctuated equilibrium. They're easily wrong, as anyone who cares can check with the links already posted or by doing their own google. You're going to brazen that, too.

You seem to feel that you're allowed to lie your butt off and pretend there's nothing going on. That too would make you a fairly typical creationist.

[VadeRetro]

deny, deny, deny... The truth is out there.

Look in the mirror, Bud. Compared to you, I'm Mr. Links.

One question... do you always get your "research" from newspaper articles?

Like I said, brazen.

[Mr. Silverback]

Bump for later entertaining reading, and thanks for the ping, VOA.

[VadeRetro]

Cleaning up old messes:

Evolutionists point out that it does have some characteristics which are found in other classes, such as reptiles.

This is true, but then it’s true of almost any vertebrate skeleton.

Bull. Archy has essentially the skeleton of a dromaeosaur. No actual modern bird has anything close. Your idea of dealing with the point is pretending to not see it. One cannot have a useful science by such courtroom tricks.

[qam1]

However, I can... Ready?

1. Science STILL cannot explain the sudden explosion of life on earth.

Doesn't mean it will never be able to.

Genesis, however, gives the only plausible explanation.'

Nah, What about the Zeus or the great turtle?

2. Prophetic Evidence: Still don't believe the Bible's true?

For example, the book of Daniel (written before 530 B.C.) ACCURATELY predicts the progression of kingdoms from Babylon through the Medo-Persian Empire, the Greek Empire, and then the Roman Empire, culminating in the persecution and suffering of the Jews under Antiochus IV Epiphanes, his desecration of the temple, his untimely death, and freedom for the Jews under Judas Maccabeus (165 B.C.).

The book of Daniel was written well after the fact of all these events, Since he couldn't even get the names & times of the kings right

Old Testament prophecies concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre were fulfilled in ancient times, including prophecies that the city would be opposed by many nations (Ezek. 26:3); it's walls would be destroyed and towers broken down (26:4); and it's stones, timbers, and debris would be thrown into the water(26:12).

No it wasn't, Ezekiel predicted it would be utterly destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar

Ezekiel 26:7

For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.

Ezek: 26:14

And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.

If this prophecy was true than where exactly was Alexander the Great invading and Jesus walking through later.

Similar prophecies were fulfilled concerning Sidon (Ezek. 28:23; Isa. 23; Jer. 27:3-6; 47:4) and Babylon (Jer. 50:13, 39; 51:26, 42, 43, 58; Isa. 13:20, 21).

Well gee, making predictions about ancient cities being attacked, That's wouldn't be hard to do, since every ancient city was always attacked from time to time.

Plus what about these flops

Isaiah 19:18

In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction.

Since they never spoke Canaan in Eqypt and it is a dead lauguage this is a failed prophecy (Plus I missed The City of Destruction on the tour)

Jeremiah 3:17

At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart.

All nations embrace Judaism?? I don't think so

Ezekiel 21:32

Thou (The Ammonites), shalt be for fuel to the fire; thy blood shall be in the midst of the land; thou shalt be no more remembered: for I the LORD have spoken it.

For one the Ammonites lived on for a few centuries before fading away and secondly umm by mentioning the Ammonites in this prophecy God guarentees they will be remembered thus falsifying his own prophecy.

Since Christ is the culminating theme of the Old Testament and the Living Word of the New Testament, it should not surprise us that prophecies regarding Him outnumber all others. Many of these prophecies would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to deliberately conspire to fulfill,

But not impossible for the gospel writters who were writting after the fact to fit the story to the prophecies and even then they got it wrong

such as His descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 12:3; 17:19);

Which descent would that be?

The one through Soloman in Mt.1:6-16 or Nathan in Lk.3:21-31?

His birth in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2);

Another false prophecy since this is talking about "people" not a person

Plus see

Mic. 5:6

And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.

Did Jesus do this????? I didn't know he was a great military leader.

His crucifixion with criminals (Isa. 53:12);

ISA. 53:12

Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

HUH? How do you get that out of there

the piercing of his hands and feet on the cross (Psalms 22:16);

Psalms 22:16

For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

Weak,

Especially since the nails would have had to pierce him in the wrist not the hands and it says nothing about a cross

And where are these dogs???

the piercing of His side and the fact that His bones were not broken at His death (Zech. 12:10; Ps. 34:20);

Zech 12:10

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

I don't see anything about his side and the term "pierced" is kind of vague there

Psalms 34:20

He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.

Again vague and whoppie doo, Predicting someone won't brake any bones.

I predict George Bush won't brake any bones tonight, If he doesn't does that make me a prophet?

Jesus also predicted His own death and resurrection (John 2:19-22).

2:19

Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

2:20

Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

2:21

But he spake of the temple of his body.

2:22

When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

1) Jesus didn't predict it, His friends thought that was what was talking about.

2) Jesus died on a Friday and came back Sunday, That's two days not three (really a day and ½)

And let's not forget these bombs

Isaiah 7:14

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Jesus was never called Immanuel.

Plus what about all the Jesus is coming back in their lifetime prophecies that never came true

i.e  All these things shall come upon this generation.

Matthew  10:23, 16:28, 23:36, 26:24 - Mark 13:30 - Luke 9:27 - John 21:22 - Philippians 4:5   1 Thessalonians 3:14, 5:23

Have a happy Thanksgiving

[Oztrich Boy]

Science Magazine (Vol 224, 1984) gives an example of shells from living snails being carbon dated at 27,000 years of age. Sort of casts some doubt on how reliable Cardon dating can be.

Maybe those snails ingested the ashes from a 27,000 YO cigarette which were then absorbed into it's shell.

Congratualtions. You have unvented dramatic sarcastic irony.

You're actually on the right track. The snails were living in pools in millions YO limestone, and absorbed the C-14 delepeted carbonate from the water.

[Bonaparte]

"...it only leads back to the question of who designed the designer?"

Really?

A. ETERNITY

By saying that God is eternal we mean that in essence, life, and action He is altogether beyond temporal limits and relations. He has neither beginning, nor end, nor duration by way of sequence or succession of moments. There is no past or future for God -- but only an eternal present. If we say that He was or that He acted, or that He will be or will act, we mean in strictness that He is or that He acts; and this truth is well expressed by Christ when He says (John, viii, 58-A.V.): "Before Abraham was, I am." Eternity, therefore, as predicated of God, does not mean indefinite duration in time -- a meaning in which the term is sometimes used in other connections -- but it means the total exclusion of the finiteness which time implies. We are obliged to use negative language in describing it, but in itself eternity is a positive perfection, and as such may be best defined in the words of Boethius as being "interminabilis vitae tota simul et perfecta possessio," i.e. possession in full entirety and perfection of life without beginning, end, or succession.

The eternity of God is a corollary from His self-existence and infinity. Time being a measure of finite existence, the infinite must transcend it. God, it is true, coexists with time, as He coexists with creatures, but He does not exist in time, so as to be subject to temporal relations: His self-existence is timeless. Yet the positive perfection expressed by duration as such, i.e. persistence and permanence of being, belongs to God and is truly predicated of Him, as when He is spoken of, for example, as "Him that is, and that was and that is to come" (Apoc., i, 4); but the strictly temporal connotation of such predicates must always be corrected by recalling the true notion of eternity.