Posted on 01/11/2003 9:53:34 PM PST by DWar
That bird has no known ancestors and birds did not arise till more than 50 million years later. There is no way it can be claimed as either an ancestor to birds or as proof of Darwinian evolution.
It is the evolutionists which give phony versions of their theory - because they are ashamed of it. Here is the theory - in Darwin's own words:
"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse;. a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. 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."
From: Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
So you are making the absurd statement that when a species transforms itself into a totally new species with new faculties, new features, new abilities it does not need to change the developmental process of the species to achieve these changes? Are you really that clueless?
Darwin and all the major proponents of evolution have been atheists. You call that coincidence I guess?
If you cannot win, have thread pulled. Shows exactly what you folks are. You cannot stand the light of truth.
In fact I can and do deny Perloff's implicit claim that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive and mutually exhaustive alternatives. This is a childishly simplistic claim that doesn't withstand the most cursory examination (e.g. the observation that versions of creationist belief, with progressive creationism in the middle, grade rather smoothly into evolutionary views) and is held exclusively by fanatics as a matter of dogma. However in the present case I limited myself to pointing out that this view of the issue is exactly the same as that of (what might be called) "scientific" or "naive" atheism.
Again, Perloff is in full agreement with the most aggressive and dogmatic sort of atheist about the philosophical framing of the "origins" issue. The only disagreement concerns the mere matter of which "side" is correct. IOW, Perloff is saying that, if you find evolutionary theory credible, you should be an atheist. To the extent, then, that Perloff's supposed "scientific" arguments against evolution are wanting (as they certainly are) he is promoting atheism.
I must admit that I really wonder if you truly are as stupid as you pretend to be.
Darwin was not (as I have proved to you repeatedly) an "atheist," although he did come close later in life, and could be reasonably described as a religious skeptic or "free thinker." There have been many "major proponents of evolution" who have been theists. The first important defender of evolution in America, for instance, and the only American member of Darwin's "inner circle" (those with whom with he shared his ideas prior to their publication) was the Harvard botanist Asa Gray, an evangelical Christian. Another example is James Dwight Dana.
Hehehe.
I donno. The mods move in wondrous ways.
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.This gives a slightly different impression than the edited version in post 102.
I certainly think he is!
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.