Posted on 07/07/2007 2:31:35 AM PDT by balch3
Mr Lundbergh is absolutely accurate in his critique of the false pseudo-scientific religion of Darwinism.
The hysterical/irrational reaction of its adherents is similar in many ways to the reaction to Pope Benedict's brilliant Regensburg lecture.
Such people do not like to have their certainties questioned.
For anyone with an open mind, neither historical evidence nor scientific experimentation lend any credibility to this "theory". It remains just that, a preposterous theory, not a matter of fact. It's very much a case of ideology masquerading as science, a crutch for closed minds, an ideology for the deluded.
There's nothing concrete or tangible about it. The contrast with the contribution of its adherents' great ideological enemy (Roman Catholicism) could not be greater. There you have tangible evidence of its reality. For example you can visit the great universities, Oxford, Cambridge, Bologna etc. You can see the Sistine Chapel. You can expand your mind by absorbing the genius of Thomas Aquinas and so on, and so on.
Bad "scientific" ideas (like all bad ideas) have bad consequences. ERIC CONWAY, NAVAN, CO MEATH * Redmond O'Hanlon writes that adherents of evolution rely on "a biased interpretation" (Letters, July 28).
This could not be futher from the truth. One of the main reasons so many books by atheist writers have appeared recently is because of the "intelligent design" concept in the USA.
Over the last few years hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in an attempt by scientists to find evidence for God's handy work in the natural world. They have even tried (unsuccessfully) to have intelligent design inserted into school science courses on the basis that both arguments deserve equall respect, even though Darwinian evolution has literally mountains of ancient evidence to back it up, and intelligent design has no evidence at all, only theory based on parts of evolution which have not been fully explained by conventional science, yet.
If people such as Mr O'Hanlon can't reconcile evolution with the existence of God, then this is as good as proof that God dosen't exist, in the same way we know the earth is not flat because we know its true shape. Proof is always positive which is why nobody can ever find evidence for the non-existence of God.
Ha Ha Ha!!! It must really suck to get up in the morning knowing you're going to have to spend the whole day being you.
Why do so many denounce the concept of God using natural processes to introduce and perpetuate his living creations in a dynamic environment, but defend the use of natural processes of rain and flood in Noah story? Couldn’t God have just as easily used the same original process to recreate all life as in Genesis if that was the way He worked?
The Creationists also said the same about the eye. That was until the scientists demonstrated the step by step evolution of every component from photosensors to lenses. The 'irreducible complexity' of the eye turned out to be not irreducibly complex. If the eye can be shown to not be irreducibly complex, your little examples don't have much of a chance.
I’m not going to tell you anything. That is your own job. I’m not your personal researcher. Evolution of the eye is justified and there is plenty of literature on the topic if you actually decide to read it rather than continue spouting your Creationism in this echo chamber. I’ll give you some hints:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
What Evolution Is, Ernst Mayr (you can find it on Amazon.com)
Clueless to defend the theory? Hardly. I just don't feel like handholding you. I post on evolution threads for fun, not because I personally care that some random Young Earth Creationist FReeper will understand a little of the science behind evolution. That chance is as likely as they will understand the science behind the Big Bang or geology. They won't--it directly conflicts with their religious views. It is verboten.
From the Index of Creationist Claims
Hope this suffices.
I hope you have not been relying on those creationist websites for your information. They have been known to misrepresent, distort, and flat-out lie about science and what science has discovered.
I’m only here to let you read my tag line.
Is this humor? - You couldn't take a stroll around the block without walking on considerable evidence.
OK. Me too.
I know, I included the second pro Darwinist letter by accident.
Poor analogy.
Humphreys' equations fairly well prove that the Earth is the center of the universe, give or take a few hundred thousand miles, but there has never been any serious belief that the Earth was flat held by any that navigated it's surface. No serious hiker could ever have held such a belief, since from as small a mountan as 3000 feet the curvature is plainly visible. School teacher talk is insipidly ignorant.
You can't; the ignorant have always been arrogant.
But the God that I know is powerful enough to do exactly what he said he did: Speak the universe into being by his word, and he also said in his word that he didn't allow any 'evolution.' (more than 100 times)
You have got to be kidding!
She still has the evo-zealots upset.
lol!
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.