Skip to comments.
Refuting Darwinism, point by point
WorldNetDaily,com ^
| 1-11-03
| Interview of James Perloff
Posted on 01/11/2003 9:53:34 PM PST by DWar
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 1,141-1,143 next last
To: DWar
Truth IS exceptionally old. It is a relatively modern and ignorant phenomenon to disparage wisdom from the past and only respect that which is 'new or modern'. The wisdom of this is questionable given that the acquisition of knowledge is a progressivly building process requiring a foundation and a progression from the elementary to the advanced. The existence of the advanced does not invalidate the wisdom of the elementary. Rather the reverse. The age of a belief does not prove its validity. It works both ways, the ancient and traditional qualities no more proves a belief than an opposing arguments modernity.
To: rmmcdaniell
"If it is so impossible how is a single fertilized egg cell able to develop into a vastly more complex adult human?"
The maturation of an individual biologic entity does not violate the the universal, scientifically accepted Second Law of Thermodynamics. However the SLoT would mitigate against any self generation of mutated biologic advancement within any organism or species or the development of one species to another.
"You need to get your head out of the bible and into science textbooks to prevent yourself from posting more stupid posts like this."
The last bastion of the ignorant is the ad hominem attack. How sad. I hope in the future it will be beneath you.
Tiomr Domini Principium Scientiae
23
posted on
01/12/2003 12:22:16 AM PST
by
DWar
To: rmmcdaniell
"If genes were rocks then you would be correct. Like stones slowly weathered into sand, genes would be eventually degraded into a completely disordered informationless state. However genes are not rocks. Genes that are degraded through mutation are eliminated through death of the individual unlucky enough to posess them. Genes that retain there usefulness are preserved through reproduction. Then the select few that become even more usefull are preferentially multiplied."
We all understand the 'theory'. But it cannot be demonstrated in nature and so remains propaganda. The presumptions of the darwinist interpretation of the fossil record are laughable. READ the article above. There is no evidence of any transitional forms. None in the living world. None in the fossil record. None in the cellular world. Why would eons of biologic evolutionary processes have simpliy ceased leaving no trace of evolutionary forms?
24
posted on
01/12/2003 12:36:24 AM PST
by
DWar
To: rmmcdaniell
"The age of a belief does not prove its validity. It works both ways, the ancient and traditional qualities no more proves a belief than an opposing arguments modernity."
I agree. However it wasn't I who asserted the veracity of anything based upon its age. Rather it was B.Bumbleberry who denegrated a certain thought process simply because it was old. My response was to that. I attempted to make the point that if it is true, it should not be discounted simply because it is old.
25
posted on
01/12/2003 12:59:12 AM PST
by
DWar
To: rmmcdaniell
The second law is always conserved. Unless someone wants to go to Newtonian Jail. The sun supplies all the energy necessary for systems on the Earth to organize. That does not mean the Theory of Evolution is more than a theory. It is just a theory, and it has yet to show replicability, and mechanism. Not very good signs as the rest of the hard sciences are progressing.
DK
PS Expect another 1500 post thread leading to bashing, and name calling and other time honored debating techniques.
To: DWar
I've been a lurker for a while, but this finally motivated me to post. I don't mind when someone who knows nothing of a topic chooses to engage in a discussion about that given topic - that is one way that we learn. However, when frauds pretend to know what they're talking about, it grows very tiresome.
First, it's taught as scientific fact.
Oh really? I just graduated with a degree in biology and this was never taught as scientific fact. It was taught as theory an evolving theory (no pun intended). It was also taught as theory when I was in high school, where we learned about the competing views of the origins of life, which included evolution, creationism, and views held by others, such as Lamarck.
mutations
never create higher, more complex information even in the rare cases of beneficial mutations, such as bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
Then how does he define higher?
cells are now known to be far too complex to have originated by some chance concurrence of chemicals, as Darwin hypothesized and is still being claimed.
Who makes that claim?
But we don't see transitionals between them. If these creatures ever existed, why did none survive? It is too easy to explain it away by saying they all became extinct.
So is too easy to explain another way of saying, makes too much sense to argue against?
Why aren't these creatures evolving into each other today? Why aren't invertebrates evolving into fish today? Why aren't fish growing little legs and so forth?
Evolution is believed to take several generations, depending on how drastic the change. My question is, how would we notice such a drastic change, of one species evolving into another? Minor changes take place over a long time, as is currently theorized. Major changes take place over a longer period of time.
And while there are billions of fossils of both invertebrates and fish, fossils linking them are missing.
What percentage of organisms from a particular species that were alive are actually found in the fossil record? Would it be reasonable to expect that the so-called transitional creatures did not have such a large population, and thus they are less likely to be found, if ever?
Dr. Michael Denton, the Australian molecular biologist, examined these creatures on a molecular level and found no evidence whatsoever for the fish-amphibian-reptile-mammal sequence.
Try phylogenic trees.
For this guy to pretend to intelligently discuss this issue reminds me of Hollywood stars pretending to intelligently discuss politics, the New England Journal of Medicine pretending to intelligently discuss gun control, and non-Muslims pretending to intelligently discuss Islam. There is nothing wrong with attempting to discuss an issue that is well outside ones area of expertise. However, to pretend to have an understanding of an issue that one is woefully ignorant of necessarily lowers the level of intelligent discourse.
To: Voice in your head
Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!
Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc/liberal/govt-religion/rhetoric)...
Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin/ACLU America---the post-modern left wing lunatic outer fringe age of evolution!
28
posted on
01/12/2003 2:19:46 AM PST
by
f.Christian
(Orcs of the world: Take note and beware.)
Comment #29 Removed by Moderator
To: DWar
"Please consider that there are thousands of highly intelligent and degree holding experts on both sides of the intelligent design verses evolution question."
I'm sure that there are. In the interview that began this thread, James Perloff demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic.
To: VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; *crevo_list; RadioAstronomer; Scully; Piltdown_Woman; ...
Recycled reading for retards. Ping.
[This ping list for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be included, or dropped, let me know via freepmail.]
Comment #32 Removed by Moderator
To: ContentiousObjector
Creationist arguments have gone from "Your going to hell" to "Your going to hell"Actually, they've gone from "You're going to Hell" to "Your going to hell". ;^)
To: DWar
But of course...
To: John H K
if you need an antidote, as always, try:
http://www.talkorigins.org/Not much scientific fact over there, just a lot of blowhard half truths. There is lots of Evidence Disproving Evolution which cannot be talked away.
35
posted on
01/12/2003 6:00:30 AM PST
by
gore3000
To: B.Bumbleberry
It becomes apparent that these same anti-evolution arguments, and a lot of others besides, really are old, going back in some instances over a 100 years.That the arguments are old does not mean they are false. In fact the argument against evolution goes back to Aristotle:
It was on the whole the former tendency (the tendency to perceive nature in discontinuous terms) that prevailed in early modern biology. In spite of the violent reaction of the astronomy, physics, and metaphysics of the Renaissance against the Aristotelian influence, in biology the doctrine of natural species continued to be potent - largely, no doubt, because it seemed to be supported by observation.
From: Lovejoy "The Great Chain of Being", pages 227-228 as quoted in Denton, "Evolution: A theory in Crises", page 354.
36
posted on
01/12/2003 6:23:38 AM PST
by
gore3000
To: DWar
Why would eons of biologic evolutionary processes have simpliy ceased leaving no trace of evolutionary forms? Yes indeed. Are we to believe the evolutionist's childish excuse that 'the dog ate the homework'?
37
posted on
01/12/2003 6:27:55 AM PST
by
gore3000
To: All
38
posted on
01/12/2003 6:28:29 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(PH is really a great guy!)
To: PatrickHenry
[This ping list for the evolution -- not creationism -Or 'we evolutionists do not want to hear what the other side has to say because we are close-minded bigots who will not change our minds in any way'.
39
posted on
01/12/2003 6:32:39 AM PST
by
gore3000
To: DWar
He teaches Human Anatomy and Pathology here at the ICR graduate school. "... Here at ICR?" The 6000-years-young-Earth propaganda mill? Henry Morris? Duane Gish? You're making an argument from authority based on the ICR resumé page?
This one of those "you really have to be a believer already" type of arguments.
40
posted on
01/12/2003 6:38:27 AM PST
by
VadeRetro
(I mean, you couldn't get Ken Ham or Carl Baugh?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 1,141-1,143 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson