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
Importantly as much if not more...if you can convince man that he evolved thru natural selection and such...then there is no creator....thus no G-D.
The whole idea behind Darwinism....eliminate G-d by replacing His acts with "something"..."anything" else. Glorify mans ability to "create" an illusion and one wins half the arguement.
I do not recall claiming they were ever found together. Jeremiah elaborates on Genesis 1:2 in Jeremiah 4:22-28 the first earthly flood wherein nothing 'survived'. And of course the flesh human bodies had not even been formed when the kataballo (the casting down/overthrow) took place. And Christ Himself spoke over and over specifically to this event. Peter says there are three different heaven/earth ages. IIPeter 3. And yet the substances that was used to create those of that first age do have similar compositions of the flesh created for this man in flesh age that is now.
Kinda like the leap from cell doubling to penis/vagina sex: which came first; as the 'record' seems a bit hazy.
Gap leaping is apparently ok.
Img src="http://www.evaluationtoolkit.org/illustrations/4/original/miracle_cartoon.jpg?1231530108">
Maybe; but FALSIFYING it would imply that it has been PROVEN to begin with.
PROVING it might make a better headline.
Yeah, but they weasel out of it by claiming that you can’t *prove* anything, it’s up to others to disprove it, so they absolve themselves of all responsibility of having to do any work.
They make a blanket statement and expect you to take it as written in stone unless YOU do the work to show otherwise.
It’s a very disingenuous debate technique.
Like the example of finding a modern human fossil colocated with the fossils of trilobites? The trouble with that is from that point on we would be described as living fossils.;^)
I like Ann and usually agree with her 100% but this time I disagree 100%. She is completely misinterpreting evolution.
Evolution is an absolute fact, and you can witness it in the laboratory with bacteria and viruses, and to me is just one more tool of God that is constantly going forth.
How does she explain race? Are Asians the same as Africans? Whites the same as aboriginals? Of course not. Obviously each has evolved as a result of environment. What she is doing is misinterpreting that.
Life does not evolve to adapt to the environment, rather the environment determines who survives and who doesn’t. Either you got the goods or you don’t. If you don’t you die which is why we have all those fossils of dead primate species. How can she say there is no “fossil evidence”? Is she kidding? And that’s just primates.
Last article she speaks about 40 moving parts in a cell. Well that’s great and all, but I doubt that same cell would be working so well if it was placed on Mars. It would just be seen as a complete bio mess, shiet in other words. A mega-fail.
All life that you see today is not life that has evolved but rather what is left over.
Think of it this way: Modern humans are approx. 200k years old which is a blink of an eye, and look how different we look between the races.
Now imagine billions of years of that. 3.8 billion years I believe. Billions of years which when it comes to life might as well be infinity.
To me it’s not about how complicated life is, but why it isn’t MORE complicated in that amount of time seeing how fast a species can change and the reason is once again the environment.
Evolution never happened in the laboratory.
Variation within species has.
There's a big difference.
Now imagine billions of years of that. 3.8 billion years I believe. Billions of years which when it comes to life might as well be infinity.”
I suspect that in billions of years, we would still be humans, with the same number of chromosomes, ability to reproduce only with other humans. We might look different, be taller/shorter, intermingling of races may result in one race. Humans living in different parts of the world for long periods of time will still “adapt”. But the species will still be, at the DNA level, present day humans.
... but you have not even come close to answering my seven questions, have you? Why?
Guess again, my friend, on the education ad hominem attack. Are you a Democrat?
Just wondering how many degrees you have?
Just wondering why you will not answer the seven-question challenge.
Nope - nothing intelligent yet. But intelligence, Darwinism, and macro-evolution should not be used in the same sentence.
Fossil---GAP---Fossil
1 Gap
Fossil---GAP---Transitional Fossil---GAP---Fossil
2 Gaps!!!
It's a win-win! What a great racket Elsie!
Hey!
I resemble that statement!!
Even Dawkins ain't THIS sure!
How about an Earth of a billion years ago?
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.