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 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 1,141-1,143 next last
To: BMCDA
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-religion/rhetoric)...
Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin America---the post-modern evo fascist expert age . . .
To: f.Christian
Now I follow, thank you. Actually, I don't disagree with this at all since I see the left as abandoning the uncertianty of democracy and majority rule for the assurance technocracy and expert rule.
152 posted on 9/10/02 12:17 PM Pacific by Liberal Classic
81
posted on
01/12/2003 12:36:40 PM PST
by
f.Christian
(Orcs of the world: Take note and beware.)
To: BMCDA
Never criticize one of your fellow creationists in front of evolutionists even if you know that his claims are false. It may look that way, but I don't think they play such a well-coordinated game. Probably the truth of the matter is that most creationists have never figured out how to determine if a claim is false. They just cling to their talking points. With increasing desperation.
82
posted on
01/12/2003 12:38:34 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(PH is really a great guy!)
To: PatrickHenry
Main Entry: tech·noc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: tek-'nä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Date: circa 1919
: government by technicians; specifically : management of society by technical experts
83
posted on
01/12/2003 12:42:59 PM PST
by
f.Christian
(Orcs of the world: Take note and beware.)
To: Dimensio
84
posted on
01/12/2003 12:43:53 PM PST
by
Condorman
(8th Rule of Creationism: Interpret any challenge as personal insult)
To: Condorman
"A New World Order emerges on the basis of heroic will (( evolution ))."
"It is not hard to see how appetizing this . . . stew (( link )) - - - was for Hitler."
85
posted on
01/12/2003 12:53:17 PM PST
by
f.Christian
(Orcs of the world: Take note and beware.)
To: Stultis; fabian
From the mussel link--
Another major barrier in bacteria lies in the structure of the gene encoding the adhesive protein. This is a long and extremely repetitive piece of DNA, and bacteria, correctly, recognise it as foreign and rapidly eliminate it through a process known as recombination.
86
posted on
01/12/2003 1:06:38 PM PST
by
AndrewC
(If it ain't broke don't fix it.)
To: DWar
In physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, also known as the law of entropy, is clear that all complex systems are in a continual process of being reduced to less complexity.The second law says no such thing. You really should learn some elementary thermodynamics to avoid making such mistakes.
87
posted on
01/12/2003 1:08:10 PM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
( You can't win. You can't break even. You can't quit.)
To: PatrickHenry
It may look that way, but I don't think they play such a well-coordinated game. This doesn't have to be coordinated. If you're up for a holy cause you simply don't criticize your brother in arms in front of all those infidels since they're doing this already enough. So it's no problem if your fellow creationist is wrong about some issue (even from your point of view) - no, the problem is that the evolutionist might be right and this impression has to be avoided at any cost.
But of course it may also be that some creationists haven't figured out how to determine if a claim is false as you said.
88
posted on
01/12/2003 1:08:10 PM PST
by
BMCDA
To: Condorman
Nice post. Liked your typical 'dishonest evolutionist' tactic of actually trying to discuss the real theory of evolution rather than some creationist strawman version. You evolutionists will never have any credibility if you insist upon sticking with 'facts' and 'truth'.
89
posted on
01/12/2003 1:10:20 PM PST
by
Dimensio
To: VadeRetro
This one of those "you really have to be a believer already" type of arguments.Vade Retro hurling ad-hominems instead of discussing the issues - what else is new?
90
posted on
01/12/2003 2:38:26 PM PST
by
gore3000
To: garbanzo
or even one on biology rather than relying on what they heard from some guy on the state of the science in these fields.You certainly should do that and you would see that evolution is impossible.
91
posted on
01/12/2003 2:40:58 PM PST
by
gore3000
To: Stultis
And he wants this book to be used in the schools, or at least to be used by teachers as a blind text? Note that this simple minded fundie does not for a minute believe that he was wrong to infer atheism from evolution. Quite the contrary. In fact the opening section of his book makes a point of justifying that inference. Therefore, at least in the effect on those unpersuaded by his creationist psuedoscience, Perloff is teaching atheism! What a convoluted argument you make in order to attack this author! You cannot deny his statements (like the rest of the evolutionists) so you contrive a totally phony attack on the man. How lame!
92
posted on
01/12/2003 2:45:25 PM PST
by
gore3000
To: Stultis
Expanding on my previous post.) This is what I'm talking about. There are only two sides to this idiot. Evolution -- which equals atheism, communism, facism, sex with animals, etc -- and Creationism -- which equals theism, apple pie and dimples on smiling children. Expanding on the ad-hominems by building a straw man. You cannot refute his statements so you attack the man - WITH PHONY ARGUMENTS.
93
posted on
01/12/2003 2:47:02 PM PST
by
gore3000
To: Dimensio
You Establishment Religion Darwinites can explain how an egg physico-chemically develops into a mature organism!-metacognitive- This has nothing to do with evolution, so I don't know why you bring it up.
Biology has nothing to do with evolution? Really? Shows to what absurd lengths the fools of evolution go to discredit opponents. Seems to me that evolution needs to explain how such a complex reproductive function arose by chance (but of course they cannot).
94
posted on
01/12/2003 2:51:05 PM PST
by
gore3000
To: gore3000
""You Establishment Religion Darwinites can explain how an egg physico-chemically develops into a mature organism!-metacognitive-""
"This has nothing to do with evolution, so I don't know why you bring it up."
Biology has nothing to do with evolution?
No, development of an organism starting from a fertilized egg has nothing to do with evolution. It should be incredibly clear from the contet what I was implying, so I can't tell if you're just incredibly ignorant or incredibly dishonest.
95
posted on
01/12/2003 2:55:09 PM PST
by
Dimensio
To: Stultis
What are you saying about the process of development? Are you suggesting that divine interventions are involved?At least for the creation of the process of development, it certainly did require divine intervention. Developmental scientists call the process by which a single cell turns into a 100 trillion cell organism with all the cells of the right kind and in the right place a program. Programs are not subject to random stochastic alteration.
In addition, how do you explain how a species can change its mode of reprodutction while continuing to reproduce? How did reptiles (supposedly) change from egg laying to live bearing while continuing to reproduce?????????
96
posted on
01/12/2003 2:55:50 PM PST
by
gore3000
To: gore3000
You cannot deny his statements
The statement that evolution implies atheism is already so obviously false as to not be worth denying. Any 'author' who tries to use it as an arguing point has already destroyed their credibility.
97
posted on
01/12/2003 2:56:17 PM PST
by
Dimensio
To: Dimensio
"But actually, it's the teaching of Darwin's theory as a "fact" that starts many young people doubting the existence of God. Once we stop believing in God, we discard his moral laws and start making up our own rules, which is basically why our society is in so much trouble. In short, Darwinism is very relevant it's much more than a science matter." -article- The article brings up God first.
Yup, but you attack the messenger instead of trying to disprove the message. The message is true. Darwin was an atheist. Most of his friends were atheists, and just about all the famous Darwinists have been atheists. So yes, you can bet that evolution is atheistic.
98
posted on
01/12/2003 2:59:11 PM PST
by
gore3000
To: PatrickHenry
Yes, the gaps that remain are what's left after several large gaps have been plugged.Total garbage. The problem of the Cambrian explosion where over 40 new phyla (the highest order of classification next to kingdom) arose suddenly, without antecedents in less than 5 million years remains a completely unexplainable. Darwin himself admitted that if the antecedents were not found his theory would be false. Gould split with Darwinism because he saw that due to the lack of of ancestors for these numerous phyla, Darwinism had been disproven.
99
posted on
01/12/2003 3:03:38 PM PST
by
gore3000
To: PatrickHenry
Hey Patrick, when are you ever going to say something regarding the issues instead of insulting opponents?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 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