Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

You can lead horses to water but you can't make them drink it.

A day will come that we will clearly see who was right

Yea when your on year death bed and jesus hasnt come back youll realize you lived your entire life for no reason.

Your last neuron will cease firing and your thoughts will stop. No soul will not depart, because everything about you is an electrical impulse in your brain.

Really ? I have my own successful business. I have 8 children and 7 grand children. I have a beautiful home up on a mountain in Arizona. Have the same wife I gladly married 30 years ago.

I played football.I played on a national paintball team.

I have horses and see Gods beauty everytime we take them out for a ride. Outside of the stroke i have had a great life.

I am an ethical and honest person partly because of me but more so because the influence of my faith.

So I don't see my life as a waste either way. But I have zero doubt that there is no God and I will meet him when the time is right.

What if Darwin was wrong ? he wasted his life chasing something that may have never happened. And his wild imagination took a whole lot of people down with him.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The author.

John M. DePoe


I am an Assistant Professor at Marywood University’s philosophy department. I have spent a lot of time pondering questions about knowledge, mind, and God. I may have even worked out some constructive answers to those questions.


Curriculum Vitae


(shortened online version, last updated 6/7/2011)
Professional Employment


Fall 2011—Current: Assistant Professor, Marywood University
Fall 2010—Spring 2011: Visiting Instructor, Black Hawk College





Education


Ph.D. Philosophy, University of Iowa (2010)
Dissertation: “A Defense of the Knowledge Argument”
Director: Richard A. Fumerton


M.A. Philosophy, Western Michigan University (2006)


M.A. Religion, Hardin-Simmons University (2004)
Thesis: “Human Freedom and Divine Foreknowledge: An Analysis of Selected Solutions”
Director: Dan R. Stiver


B.A. Philosophy and Theology, Hardin-Simmons University (2002)



Areas of Specialization


Epistemology, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Religion



Areas of Competence


History of Modern Philosophy, Logic, Ethics



Publications


Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles


“Williamson on the Evidence for Skepticism,” Southwest Philosophical Studies, forthcoming.


“Defeating the Self-Defeat Argument for Phenomenal Conservatism,” Philosophical Studies 152, no. 3 (2011): 347-359.


“Vindicating a Bayesian Approach to Confirming Miracles: A Response to Jordan Howard Sobel’s Reading of Hume,” Philosophia Christi 10, no. 1 (2008): 229-38.


“In Defense of Classical Foundationalism: A Critical Evaluation of Plantinga's Argument that Classical Foundationalism is Self-Refuting,” The South African Journal of Philosophy 26, no. 3 (2007): 245-51.


“Theism, Atheism, and the Metaphysics of Free Will,” Southwest Philosophical Studies 27 (2005): 36-44.



For his research.

Philosophical Research & Interests

Ignorance! Pure ignorance!

Cambrian explosion

The consensus on the cambrian explosion is quite different then you understand. Its not the evolution of most animals we see today. Its the evolution of things like crustaceans and fish, not dogs and cats.

Darwins black box

Irreducible complexity? Really? How many times does that have to be disproved? The flagella is partially a Type III secretion system, 10 of the proteins function as a "needle" to inject toxin in some bacteria. So its not an example of irreducible complexity.

Usually tackling the problem of irreducible complexity requires knowledge of how proteins, cells, and even the human body work (remember when i had to teach you about the brain?). I think thats the problem were running into with this argument.

Genetics

UGH! The genetic mutation behind darwins finches isnt known??? really??

Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin's Finches

protein BMP4 controls the structure of the beak during gestation. Again, the claim that "mutations in developmental genes are always harmful" is a giant simplification. more likely a change in the protein leads to a small change in the structure of some skeletal feature.

Note: I deleted everything but your sources, because i think they might say something about the quality of your copy-pasta. Esta no muy bueno señor....

Calling a professor ignorant with peer reviewed articles.

That is a fact about the cambrian explosion all of a sudden in a short period time over 50 different body sructures appeared with no connection from the past,And they are still the same today.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The author.

John M. DePoe


I am an Assistant Professor at Marywood University’s philosophy department. I have spent a lot of time pondering questions about knowledge, mind, and God. I may have even worked out some constructive answers to those questions.


Curriculum Vitae


(shortened online version, last updated 6/7/2011)
Professional Employment


Fall 2011—Current: Assistant Professor, Marywood University
Fall 2010—Spring 2011: Visiting Instructor, Black Hawk College





Education


Ph.D. Philosophy, University of Iowa (2010)
Dissertation: “A Defense of the Knowledge Argument”
Director: Richard A. Fumerton


M.A. Philosophy, Western Michigan University (2006)


M.A. Religion, Hardin-Simmons University (2004)
Thesis: “Human Freedom and Divine Foreknowledge: An Analysis of Selected Solutions”
Director: Dan R. Stiver


B.A. Philosophy and Theology, Hardin-Simmons University (2002)



Areas of Specialization


Epistemology, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Religion



Areas of Competence


History of Modern Philosophy, Logic, Ethics



Publications


Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles


“Williamson on the Evidence for Skepticism,” Southwest Philosophical Studies, forthcoming.


“Defeating the Self-Defeat Argument for Phenomenal Conservatism,” Philosophical Studies 152, no. 3 (2011): 347-359.


“Vindicating a Bayesian Approach to Confirming Miracles: A Response to Jordan Howard Sobel’s Reading of Hume,” Philosophia Christi 10, no. 1 (2008): 229-38.


“In Defense of Classical Foundationalism: A Critical Evaluation of Plantinga's Argument that Classical Foundationalism is Self-Refuting,” The South African Journal of Philosophy 26, no. 3 (2007): 245-51.


“Theism, Atheism, and the Metaphysics of Free Will,” Southwest Philosophical Studies 27 (2005): 36-44.



For his research.

Philosophical Research & Interests

Ignorance! Pure ignorance!

Cambrian explosion

The consensus on the cambrian explosion is quite different then you understand. Its not the evolution of most animals we see today. Its the evolution of things like crustaceans and fish, not dogs and cats.

Darwins black box

Irreducible complexity? Really? How many times does that have to be disproved? The flagella is partially a Type III secretion system, 10 of the proteins function as a "needle" to inject toxin in some bacteria. So its not an example of irreducible complexity.

Usually tackling the problem of irreducible complexity requires knowledge of how proteins, cells, and even the human body work (remember when i had to teach you about the brain?). I think thats the problem were running into with this argument.

Genetics

UGH! The genetic mutation behind darwins finches isnt known??? really??

Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin's Finches

protein BMP4 controls the structure of the beak during gestation. Again, the claim that "mutations in developmental genes are always harmful" is a giant simplification. more likely a change in the protein leads to a small change in the structure of some skeletal feature.

Note: I deleted everything but your sources, because i think they might say something about the quality of your copy-pasta. Esta no muy bueno señor....

If you are so concerned with copying and pasting why do you do it ?

 

[cbirch2]

The author.

John M. DePoe


I am an Assistant Professor at Marywood University’s philosophy department. I have spent a lot of time pondering questions about knowledge, mind, and God. I may have even worked out some constructive answers to those questions.


Curriculum Vitae


(shortened online version, last updated 6/7/2011)
Professional Employment


Fall 2011—Current: Assistant Professor, Marywood University
Fall 2010—Spring 2011: Visiting Instructor, Black Hawk College





Education


Ph.D. Philosophy, University of Iowa (2010)
Dissertation: “A Defense of the Knowledge Argument”
Director: Richard A. Fumerton


M.A. Philosophy, Western Michigan University (2006)


M.A. Religion, Hardin-Simmons University (2004)
Thesis: “Human Freedom and Divine Foreknowledge: An Analysis of Selected Solutions”
Director: Dan R. Stiver


B.A. Philosophy and Theology, Hardin-Simmons University (2002)



Areas of Specialization


Epistemology, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Religion



Areas of Competence


History of Modern Philosophy, Logic, Ethics



Publications


Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles


“Williamson on the Evidence for Skepticism,” Southwest Philosophical Studies, forthcoming.


“Defeating the Self-Defeat Argument for Phenomenal Conservatism,” Philosophical Studies 152, no. 3 (2011): 347-359.


“Vindicating a Bayesian Approach to Confirming Miracles: A Response to Jordan Howard Sobel’s Reading of Hume,” Philosophia Christi 10, no. 1 (2008): 229-38.


“In Defense of Classical Foundationalism: A Critical Evaluation of Plantinga's Argument that Classical Foundationalism is Self-Refuting,” The South African Journal of Philosophy 26, no. 3 (2007): 245-51.


“Theism, Atheism, and the Metaphysics of Free Will,” Southwest Philosophical Studies 27 (2005): 36-44.



For his research.

Philosophical Research & Interests

Ignorance! Pure ignorance!

Cambrian explosion

The consensus on the cambrian explosion is quite different then you understand. Its not the evolution of most animals we see today. Its the evolution of things like crustaceans and fish, not dogs and cats.

Darwins black box

Irreducible complexity? Really? How many times does that have to be disproved? The flagella is partially a Type III secretion system, 10 of the proteins function as a "needle" to inject toxin in some bacteria. So its not an example of irreducible complexity.

Usually tackling the problem of irreducible complexity requires knowledge of how proteins, cells, and even the human body work (remember when i had to teach you about the brain?). I think thats the problem were running into with this argument.

Genetics

UGH! The genetic mutation behind darwins finches isnt known??? really??

Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin's Finches

protein BMP4 controls the structure of the beak during gestation. Again, the claim that "mutations in developmental genes are always harmful" is a giant simplification. more likely a change in the protein leads to a small change in the structure of some skeletal feature.

Note: I deleted everything but your sources, because i think they might say something about the quality of your copy-pasta. Esta no muy bueno señor....

If you are so concerned with copying and pasting why do you do it ?

Lol the only thing i copied was the URL for that link you fool. Cool little dance around my rebuttal, though.

Typical. State something that isnt true to avoid factual debate.

 

[cbirch2]

You can lead horses to water but you can't make them drink it.

A day will come that we will clearly see who was right

Yea when your on year death bed and jesus hasnt come back youll realize you lived your entire life for no reason.

Your last neuron will cease firing and your thoughts will stop. No soul will not depart, because everything about you is an electrical impulse in your brain.

Really ? I have my own successful business. I have 8 children and 7 grand children. I have a beautiful home up on a mountain in Arizona. Have the same wife I gladly married 30 years ago.

I played football.I played on a national paintball team.

I have horses and see Gods beauty everytime we take them out for a ride. Outside of the stroke i have had a great life.

I am an ethical and honest person partly because of me but more so because the influence of my faith.

So I don't see my life as a waste either way. But I have zero doubt that there is no God and I will meet him when the time is right.

What if Darwin was wrong ? he wasted his life chasing something that may have never happened. And his wild imagination took a whole lot of people down with him.

Well you can think you see god all you want, the fact is you will die without proof. Because most likely he doesnt exist.

But what if darwin is wrong? Well see, my faith isnt evolution. Thats where you and i diverge, i dont form my opinions on faith.

If darwin is wrong, my opinion on the afterlife is no different. Your personality is just electrical connections in the brain. The concept of a soul comes from the feeling that your personality and your mind are separate from your body. While complex, its still biochemistry none-the-less.

So if darwin's wrong im still going to be certain in what i believe happens after death: nothing. Your neurons stop firing and you will be dead.

 

[cbirch2]

The author.

John M. DePoe


I am an Assistant Professor at Marywood University’s philosophy department. I have spent a lot of time pondering questions about knowledge, mind, and God. I may have even worked out some constructive answers to those questions.


Curriculum Vitae


(shortened online version, last updated 6/7/2011)
Professional Employment


Fall 2011—Current: Assistant Professor, Marywood University
Fall 2010—Spring 2011: Visiting Instructor, Black Hawk College





Education


Ph.D. Philosophy, University of Iowa (2010)
Dissertation: “A Defense of the Knowledge Argument”
Director: Richard A. Fumerton


M.A. Philosophy, Western Michigan University (2006)


M.A. Religion, Hardin-Simmons University (2004)
Thesis: “Human Freedom and Divine Foreknowledge: An Analysis of Selected Solutions”
Director: Dan R. Stiver


B.A. Philosophy and Theology, Hardin-Simmons University (2002)



Areas of Specialization


Epistemology, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Religion



Areas of Competence


History of Modern Philosophy, Logic, Ethics



Publications


Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles


“Williamson on the Evidence for Skepticism,” Southwest Philosophical Studies, forthcoming.


“Defeating the Self-Defeat Argument for Phenomenal Conservatism,” Philosophical Studies 152, no. 3 (2011): 347-359.


“Vindicating a Bayesian Approach to Confirming Miracles: A Response to Jordan Howard Sobel’s Reading of Hume,” Philosophia Christi 10, no. 1 (2008): 229-38.


“In Defense of Classical Foundationalism: A Critical Evaluation of Plantinga's Argument that Classical Foundationalism is Self-Refuting,” The South African Journal of Philosophy 26, no. 3 (2007): 245-51.


“Theism, Atheism, and the Metaphysics of Free Will,” Southwest Philosophical Studies 27 (2005): 36-44.



For his research.

Philosophical Research & Interests

Ignorance! Pure ignorance!

Cambrian explosion

The consensus on the cambrian explosion is quite different then you understand. Its not the evolution of most animals we see today. Its the evolution of things like crustaceans and fish, not dogs and cats.

Darwins black box

Irreducible complexity? Really? How many times does that have to be disproved? The flagella is partially a Type III secretion system, 10 of the proteins function as a "needle" to inject toxin in some bacteria. So its not an example of irreducible complexity.

Usually tackling the problem of irreducible complexity requires knowledge of how proteins, cells, and even the human body work (remember when i had to teach you about the brain?). I think thats the problem were running into with this argument.

Genetics

UGH! The genetic mutation behind darwins finches isnt known??? really??

Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin's Finches

protein BMP4 controls the structure of the beak during gestation. Again, the claim that "mutations in developmental genes are always harmful" is a giant simplification. more likely a change in the protein leads to a small change in the structure of some skeletal feature.

Note: I deleted everything but your sources, because i think they might say something about the quality of your copy-pasta. Esta no muy bueno señor....

Calling a professor ignorant with peer reviewed articles.

That is a fact about the cambrian explosion all of a sudden in a short period time over 50 different body sructures appeared with no connection from the past,And they are still the same today.

"peer reviewed"

Really? i doubt that, and if so i doubt his peers had very good things to say.

But what do you mean the body structures are still the same today? They arent, because theyre much more evolved. The Cambrian explosion is basically the transition from colonies of cells to full fledged multicellular organisms. Its not a short period of time either, its about 100 million years.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yea when your on year death bed and jesus hasnt come back youll realize you lived your entire life for no reason.

Your last neuron will cease firing and your thoughts will stop. No soul will not depart, because everything about you is an electrical impulse in your brain.

Really ? I have my own successful business. I have 8 children and 7 grand children. I have a beautiful home up on a mountain in Arizona. Have the same wife I gladly married 30 years ago.

I played football.I played on a national paintball team.

I have horses and see Gods beauty everytime we take them out for a ride. Outside of the stroke i have had a great life.

I am an ethical and honest person partly because of me but more so because the influence of my faith.

So I don't see my life as a waste either way. But I have zero doubt that there is no God and I will meet him when the time is right.

What if Darwin was wrong ? he wasted his life chasing something that may have never happened. And his wild imagination took a whole lot of people down with him.

Well you can think you see god all you want, the fact is you will die without proof. Because most likely he doesnt exist.

But what if darwin is wrong? Well see, my faith isnt evolution. Thats where you and i diverge, i dont form my opinions on faith.

If darwin is wrong, my opinion on the afterlife is no different. Your personality is just electrical connections in the brain. The concept of a soul comes from the feeling that your personality and your mind are separate from your body. While complex, its still biochemistry none-the-less.

So if darwin's wrong im still going to be certain in what i believe happens after death: nothing. Your neurons stop firing and you will be dead.

Maybe ,maybe not.

I should have posted this article sooner.

27. TWENTY OBJECTIONS ADMITTED

Evolutionists themselves, even including Darwin, admit as many as 20 objections to his theory. Darwin states the first four and Prof. V. L. Kellogg sums up the remaining 16 on pp. 247-52 of "Readings in Evolution." Among them are:

1. There must have been innumerable transitional forms in the formation of new species. No convincing evidence of these missing links exists.

2. Natural selection can not account for the instinct of animals such as that of the honey bee, "which has practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematics.":

4. The offspring of such nearly related species as can be crossed are sterile, showing that nature discourages and in no wise encourages the formation of new species.

5. The changes resulting from the use and disuse of organs are not inherited.

6. Since Darwinism eliminates design, it is only the exploded ancient heathen doctrine of chance.

7. Variation is so slight as to be imperceptible, and, therefore, cannot account for the "survival of the fittest." If the same progressive changes do not occur generally, if not universally, in the numbers of the same species in the same period, no new species can arise. Such general changes do not occur.

8. Natural selection could not make use of initial slight changes. "What would be the advantage of the first few hairs of a mammal, or the first steps toward feathers in a bird, when these creatures were beginning to diverge from their reptilian ancestors?"

9. Even if Darwinism should explain the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the survival of the fittest, which is far more important.

10. Darwin says, "I am convinced that natural selection has been the most important but not the exclusive means of modification." Many scientists think it of very little importance, and that it is not true.

11. "The fluctuating variations of Darwinism are quantitative, or plus and minus variations; whereas, the differences between species are qualitative." Growth and development in one species does not produce a new species, which must be of a different kind. Miles Darden, of Tennessee, was 90 inches tall, and weighed 1000 pounds, but remained a member of the human species, though he was as high and heavy as a horse. So did the giant Posius, over 10 feet tall, who lived in the days of Augustus.

12. "There is a growing skepticism on the part of biologists as to the extreme fierceness of the struggle for existence and of the consequent rigor of selection." Overproduction and shortage of space and food might sometime be a factor of importance, but has it been so in the past? Has it affected the human race?

13. Darwin proposed the theory of gemmules. Prof. H. H. Newman says, "This theory was not satisfactory even to Darwin and is now only of historical interest."

14. Darwin's subsidiary theory of sexual selection has also been rejected by scientists as worthless.

In view of these and other objections, is it any wonder that Darwin's theory has been so largely rejected by the scientific world?

And is it not amazing that self-styled "scientists" hold on to their precious theory of evolution, as if these objections had no weight? They can not save evolution even by rejecting Darwinism.

Dr. Etheridge, famous fossilologist of the British Museum, one of the highest authorities in the world, said: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." Is a man in that position not a credible witness?

Prof. Beale, of King's College, London, a distinguished physiologist, said: "There is no evidence that man has descended from, or is, or was, in any way specially related to, any other organism in nature, through evolution, or by any other process. In support of all naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not, at this time, a shadow of scientific evidence."

Prof Virchow, of Berlin, a naturalist of world wide fame, said: The attempt to find the transition from the .animal to man has ended in total failure. The middle link has not been found and never will be. Evolution is all nonsense. It can not be proved by science that man descended from the ape or from any other animal."

Prof. Fleishman, of Erlangen, who once accepted Darwinism, but after further investigation repudiated it, said: "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it, in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but is purely the product of the imagination."

Prof. Agassiz, one of the greatest scientists of any age, said: "The theory [of the transmutation of species] is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency There is not a fact known to science, tending to show that a single kind has ever been transmuted into any other."

Dr. W. H. Thompson, former president of NY Academy of Medicine, said: "The Darwinian theory is now rejected by the majority of biologists, as absurdly inadequate. It is absurd to rank man among the animals. His so called fellow animals, the primates--gorilla, orang and chimpanzee--can do nothing truly human."

Sir William Dawson, an eminent geologist, of Canada, said: "The record of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists, especially in the abrupt appearance of new forms under specific types, and without apparent predecessors...Paleontology furnishes no evidence as to the actual transformation of one species into another. No such case is certainly known. Nothing is known about the origin of man except what is told in Scripture."

The foremost evolutionists, Spencer, Huxley and Romanes, before their death, repudiated Darwinism. Haeckel alone supported the theory and that by forged evidence.

Dr. St. George Mivert, late professor of biology in the University College of Kensington, calls Darwinism a "puerile hypothesis."

Dr. James Orr, of Edinburgh University, says: "The greatest scientists and theologians of Europe are now pronouncing Darwinism to be absolutely dead."

Dr. Traas, a famous paleontologist, concludes: "The idea that mankind is descended from any simian species whatever, is certainly the most foolish ever put forth by a man writing on the history of man." Does this apply to H. G. Wells?

Dr. N. S. Shaler, professor of Geology, in Harvard University, said: "It is not yet proved that a single species of the two or three millions, now inhabiting the earth had been established solely or mainly, by the operation of natural selection."

Prof. Haeckel, a most extreme evolutionist, confesses: "Most modern investigators of science have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of evolution, and particularly Darwinism, is an error, and can not be maintained.

Prof. Huxley, said that evolution is "not proved and not provable."

Sir Charles Bell, Prof. of the University College of London, says: "Everything declares the species to have their origin in a distinct creation, not in a gradual variation from some original type."

These testimonies of scientists of the first rank are a part of a large number. Many of them and many more, are given in Prof. Townsend's "Collapse of Evolution," McCann's "God or Gorilla," Philip Mauro's "Evolution At the Bar," and other anti-evolution books. Alfred McCann, in his great work, "God or Gorilla," mentions 20 of the most prominent scholars, who do not accept Darwinism. Yet they say, "All scholars accept evolution."



For full article.

The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ignorance! Pure ignorance!

Cambrian explosion

The consensus on the cambrian explosion is quite different then you understand. Its not the evolution of most animals we see today. Its the evolution of things like crustaceans and fish, not dogs and cats.

Darwins black box

Irreducible complexity? Really? How many times does that have to be disproved? The flagella is partially a Type III secretion system, 10 of the proteins function as a "needle" to inject toxin in some bacteria. So its not an example of irreducible complexity.

Usually tackling the problem of irreducible complexity requires knowledge of how proteins, cells, and even the human body work (remember when i had to teach you about the brain?). I think thats the problem were running into with this argument.

Genetics

UGH! The genetic mutation behind darwins finches isnt known??? really??

Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin's Finches

protein BMP4 controls the structure of the beak during gestation. Again, the claim that "mutations in developmental genes are always harmful" is a giant simplification. more likely a change in the protein leads to a small change in the structure of some skeletal feature.

Note: I deleted everything but your sources, because i think they might say something about the quality of your copy-pasta. Esta no muy bueno señor....

Calling a professor ignorant with peer reviewed articles.

That is a fact about the cambrian explosion all of a sudden in a short period time over 50 different body sructures appeared with no connection from the past,And they are still the same today.

"peer reviewed"

Really? i doubt that, and if so i doubt his peers had very good things to say.

But what do you mean the body structures are still the same today? They arent, because theyre much more evolved. The Cambrian explosion is basically the transition from colonies of cells to full fledged multicellular organisms. Its not a short period of time either, its about 100 million years.

Living fossils.

Living-Fossils.com

 

[cbirch2]

Calling a professor ignorant with peer reviewed articles.

That is a fact about the cambrian explosion all of a sudden in a short period time over 50 different body sructures appeared with no connection from the past,And they are still the same today.

"peer reviewed"

Really? i doubt that, and if so i doubt his peers had very good things to say.

But what do you mean the body structures are still the same today? They arent, because theyre much more evolved. The Cambrian explosion is basically the transition from colonies of cells to full fledged multicellular organisms. Its not a short period of time either, its about 100 million years.

Living fossils.

Living-Fossils.com

How many times do i have to explain the same things to you over and over. If you would have read my point by point refutation of your idiocy you would have read the part about living fossils.

Evolution says some fish evolved into terapods. It does not say all fish evolve into terapods, that would be strange.

Besides, living fossils usually live in isolated environments. If a fish lives in an underwater cavern, it wont evolve into an air breathing terapod in a billion years. The environment necessary is just not there for it to happen.

Living fossils are wonderful evidence of evolution, because we find them in environments evolution predicts we should!

 

[cbirch2]

Really ? I have my own successful business. I have 8 children and 7 grand children. I have a beautiful home up on a mountain in Arizona. Have the same wife I gladly married 30 years ago.

I played football.I played on a national paintball team.

I have horses and see Gods beauty everytime we take them out for a ride. Outside of the stroke i have had a great life.

I am an ethical and honest person partly because of me but more so because the influence of my faith.

So I don't see my life as a waste either way. But I have zero doubt that there is no God and I will meet him when the time is right.

What if Darwin was wrong ? he wasted his life chasing something that may have never happened. And his wild imagination took a whole lot of people down with him.

Well you can think you see god all you want, the fact is you will die without proof. Because most likely he doesnt exist.

But what if darwin is wrong? Well see, my faith isnt evolution. Thats where you and i diverge, i dont form my opinions on faith.

If darwin is wrong, my opinion on the afterlife is no different. Your personality is just electrical connections in the brain. The concept of a soul comes from the feeling that your personality and your mind are separate from your body. While complex, its still biochemistry none-the-less.

So if darwin's wrong im still going to be certain in what i believe happens after death: nothing. Your neurons stop firing and you will be dead.

Maybe ,maybe not.

I should have posted this article sooner.

27. TWENTY OBJECTIONS ADMITTED

Evolutionists themselves, even including Darwin, admit as many as 20 objections to his theory. Darwin states the first four and Prof. V. L. Kellogg sums up the remaining 16 on pp. 247-52 of "Readings in Evolution." Among them are:

1. There must have been innumerable transitional forms in the formation of new species. No convincing evidence of these missing links exists.

2. Natural selection can not account for the instinct of animals such as that of the honey bee, "which has practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematics.":

4. The offspring of such nearly related species as can be crossed are sterile, showing that nature discourages and in no wise encourages the formation of new species.

5. The changes resulting from the use and disuse of organs are not inherited.

6. Since Darwinism eliminates design, it is only the exploded ancient heathen doctrine of chance.

7. Variation is so slight as to be imperceptible, and, therefore, cannot account for the "survival of the fittest." If the same progressive changes do not occur generally, if not universally, in the numbers of the same species in the same period, no new species can arise. Such general changes do not occur.

8. Natural selection could not make use of initial slight changes. "What would be the advantage of the first few hairs of a mammal, or the first steps toward feathers in a bird, when these creatures were beginning to diverge from their reptilian ancestors?"

9. Even if Darwinism should explain the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the survival of the fittest, which is far more important.

10. Darwin says, "I am convinced that natural selection has been the most important but not the exclusive means of modification." Many scientists think it of very little importance, and that it is not true.

11. "The fluctuating variations of Darwinism are quantitative, or plus and minus variations; whereas, the differences between species are qualitative." Growth and development in one species does not produce a new species, which must be of a different kind. Miles Darden, of Tennessee, was 90 inches tall, and weighed 1000 pounds, but remained a member of the human species, though he was as high and heavy as a horse. So did the giant Posius, over 10 feet tall, who lived in the days of Augustus.

12. "There is a growing skepticism on the part of biologists as to the extreme fierceness of the struggle for existence and of the consequent rigor of selection." Overproduction and shortage of space and food might sometime be a factor of importance, but has it been so in the past? Has it affected the human race?

13. Darwin proposed the theory of gemmules. Prof. H. H. Newman says, "This theory was not satisfactory even to Darwin and is now only of historical interest."

14. Darwin's subsidiary theory of sexual selection has also been rejected by scientists as worthless.

In view of these and other objections, is it any wonder that Darwin's theory has been so largely rejected by the scientific world?

And is it not amazing that self-styled "scientists" hold on to their precious theory of evolution, as if these objections had no weight? They can not save evolution even by rejecting Darwinism.

Dr. Etheridge, famous fossilologist of the British Museum, one of the highest authorities in the world, said: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." Is a man in that position not a credible witness?

Prof. Beale, of King's College, London, a distinguished physiologist, said: "There is no evidence that man has descended from, or is, or was, in any way specially related to, any other organism in nature, through evolution, or by any other process. In support of all naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not, at this time, a shadow of scientific evidence."

Prof Virchow, of Berlin, a naturalist of world wide fame, said: The attempt to find the transition from the .animal to man has ended in total failure. The middle link has not been found and never will be. Evolution is all nonsense. It can not be proved by science that man descended from the ape or from any other animal."

Prof. Fleishman, of Erlangen, who once accepted Darwinism, but after further investigation repudiated it, said: "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it, in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but is purely the product of the imagination."

Prof. Agassiz, one of the greatest scientists of any age, said: "The theory [of the transmutation of species] is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency There is not a fact known to science, tending to show that a single kind has ever been transmuted into any other."

Dr. W. H. Thompson, former president of NY Academy of Medicine, said: "The Darwinian theory is now rejected by the majority of biologists, as absurdly inadequate. It is absurd to rank man among the animals. His so called fellow animals, the primates--gorilla, orang and chimpanzee--can do nothing truly human."

Sir William Dawson, an eminent geologist, of Canada, said: "The record of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists, especially in the abrupt appearance of new forms under specific types, and without apparent predecessors...Paleontology furnishes no evidence as to the actual transformation of one species into another. No such case is certainly known. Nothing is known about the origin of man except what is told in Scripture."

The foremost evolutionists, Spencer, Huxley and Romanes, before their death, repudiated Darwinism. Haeckel alone supported the theory and that by forged evidence.

Dr. St. George Mivert, late professor of biology in the University College of Kensington, calls Darwinism a "puerile hypothesis."

Dr. James Orr, of Edinburgh University, says: "The greatest scientists and theologians of Europe are now pronouncing Darwinism to be absolutely dead."

Dr. Traas, a famous paleontologist, concludes: "The idea that mankind is descended from any simian species whatever, is certainly the most foolish ever put forth by a man writing on the history of man." Does this apply to H. G. Wells?

Dr. N. S. Shaler, professor of Geology, in Harvard University, said: "It is not yet proved that a single species of the two or three millions, now inhabiting the earth had been established solely or mainly, by the operation of natural selection."

Prof. Haeckel, a most extreme evolutionist, confesses: "Most modern investigators of science have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of evolution, and particularly Darwinism, is an error, and can not be maintained.

Prof. Huxley, said that evolution is "not proved and not provable."

Sir Charles Bell, Prof. of the University College of London, says: "Everything declares the species to have their origin in a distinct creation, not in a gradual variation from some original type."

These testimonies of scientists of the first rank are a part of a large number. Many of them and many more, are given in Prof. Townsend's "Collapse of Evolution," McCann's "God or Gorilla," Philip Mauro's "Evolution At the Bar," and other anti-evolution books. Alfred McCann, in his great work, "God or Gorilla," mentions 20 of the most prominent scholars, who do not accept Darwinism. Yet they say, "All scholars accept evolution."



For full article.

The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved

Yea argue against darwins 150 year old understanding of evolution, thatll make you sound smart. Learn the modern theory of evolution, and by that i mean after the discovery of genetics and proteins.

Im not going to refute that post point by point, because every time i do that you ignore it. I'm not going to waste an hour of my life teaching you biology when your going to ignore the entire post anyways, just like last time.

 

[cbirch2]

Ok since it was so easy to refute some of your points i had to.

"4. The offspring of such nearly related species as can be crossed are sterile, showing that nature discourages and in no wise encourages the formation of new species."

See: Mule

"5. The changes resulting from the use and disuse of organs are not inherited."

And if you think evolution says they are you should hit yourself in the head with a hammer


And this is my favorite:

"6. Since Darwinism eliminates design, it is only the exploded ancient heathen doctrine of chance."

OH WHAT A GREAT PIECE OF EVIDENCE.

"darwinism eliminates design." Oh im convinced!

 

[daws101]

No threat, just a promise given a long time ago.

Joh 1:3 All things came into existence through him, and without him nothing was.

Eph 3:9 and to bring to light what is the fellowship of the mystery which from eternity has been hidden in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ;

Rev 4:11 O Lord, You are worthy to receive glory and honor and power, because You created all things, and for Your will they are and were created.

Rev 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains.
Rev 6:16 And they said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him sitting on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;
Rev 6:17 for the great day of His wrath has come, and who will be able to stand?

I definitely have more faith in God over sinful man.

any way you spin it it's still a threat...
as to sin it's conceived by man practiced by man...

I don't spin i speak to the point that is why you guys disagree with me so. I call things the way I see it.

That is a promise through prophecy if you take it as a threat then that is on you.

God say's how it is gonna be and there is no changing that.

Man can use philosophy all they like to rid their thoughts of God ,but GOD doesn't go away and is always in the back of your mind even with the ones who reject him.

ahhh... everything you post is spun ...it's not objective ..it's subjective .
god is credited for saying lots of things will happen, but they never have.
if they were to happen, they would have to be better then the laws of Chance: 50% 50%
and then be proven by emperical evidence not to be chance.

 

[LOki]

A better wall of text.

Why does your side make many different family trees if we are all related ? why not just one tree since you believe DNA similarity proves ancestry.

Proponents of the Theory of Evolution do not assert that there are or "... make many different family trees."

It is in fact creationists who (in stolidly retarded denial of the genetic evidence) make many family trees based on their dopey baraminology.

Another

delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

No it is up to your side to show that mutations lead to the major changes of macro-evolution.

Obviously what we have here is a thoroughly indoctrinated simpleton who demands that the ontological differentiation of the concepts of micro-evolution and macro-evolution propagated by pulpitarians take precedence over the legitimate differentiation expressed by vetted geneticists.

The problem Creationists face when confronted by the verifiable facts of reality is that there is abundant evidence supporting the claim that change in genotype (even those caused by mutation) can lead to change in phenotype. Hence, the Creationist's disingenuous persistence in applying their own vague meanings to terms already understood by others as a means to disguise their self-indicting lack of courage in their certainty of the objective validity of their convictions.

The burden of the issue, none-the-less, fully belongs to these superstitious Creationist asshats who are obligated explain why, of all the ways that change in genotype verifiably lead to change in phenotype, the one exception to the well established and agreed upon relationship between genotype and phenotype is mutation.

We might hope that this should keep them silently busy forever. But, we should be careful to not underestimate the strength of the Creationist's biological imperative to inflict their superstitious folly upon the world; to the annoyance of the population of intellectually honest, rational human beings.

Another

delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

I have asked you for any proof that refutes what he said and you can't provide that proof so you make another meaningless post.

Sure I can, but you're an intellectually dishonest asshat for whom the term "proof" is utterly meaningless, let alone the notions of verifiable evidence and valid logic.

There's no point in attempting to "prove" anything to you as long as you continue to embrace your incontrovertibly shameless refusal to admit the evincible intellectual dishonesty of your irrational intellectual paradigm.

While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.

You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.

So the real mystery here is, why do you repeatedly make these requests for "proof" of assertions that you disagree with, when simple disagreement with your baseless (by you own explicit admission) preconceptions is the sufficient criterion you apply to dismiss those proofs?

Another

delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

Yes your side claims that eldredge did not make the theory because of the lack of transitional fossils and that is a lie.

Maybe not so much.

"PE is not mutually exclusive of phyletic gradualism. Gould and Eldredge take pains to explicitly point out that PE is an expansive theory, not an exclusive one (1977).

PE sometimes is claimed to be a theory resting upon the lack of evidence rather than upon evidence. This is a curious, but false claim, since Eldredge and Gould spent a significant portion of their original work examining two separate lines of evidence (one involving pulmonate gastropods, the other one involving Phacopsid trilobites) demonstrating the issues behind PE (1972)."​

Maybe it's time for you to STFU regarding what punctuated equilibrium is actually about, Junior.

Another

delivered to Youwerecreated.

What verifiable evidence have you submitted? None. Your validations for your "evidence" all--and I mean without exception--rest upon a question begging argument.

Which of course is just fine considering that by invoking faith as the foundation for this explanation of yours, you admit to no fundamental or necessary substantiation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

I accept this. And just to be clear, I've stopped asking you to validate with evidence your explanation whose foundation has no explanation in evidence. I think I have been clear that I accept this. But I'm not sure you do. So I'll ask again, and read the question carefully; I am uninterested in more "evidence" that is fundamentally irrelevant to you anyway; I'm looking for your justifications for dismissing other faith-based creation
"theories" along with evolution:

"Upon what basis then should your "explanation" be considered superior to any creation story unfounded in evidence and/or valid logic? On what basis should it be considered intellectually honest?"​

Another

delivered to Youwerecreated.

By your very own criteria then, the same objectively applies to the Eddas. That being the case, upon what fact of objective reality and/or valid logic do you base your assertion that Yahweh, rather than Odin, is the Creator?

I refuse to keep repeating myself.

You refuse honestly answer, because you would then have to admit that there is no fact of objective reality and/or valid logic upon which to base your assertion that Yahweh, rather than Odin, is the Creator.

Indeed, if you were going to be honest and apply some intellectual integrity, you would be obligated to admit that Judeo/Chrisitan Creation "science" has objectively the exact same basis and validity in verifiable evidence and valid logic as the Creation "sciences" involving:

• El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Genesis creation myth);
• Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
• Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe;
• Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
• Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
• Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a co-creator of the world;
• The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
• Viracocha in Inca mythology;
• Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies;
• Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
• Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
• Pangu in Chinese mythology, who separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang);
• Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
• Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while in later Puranic period, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are for creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively);
• Rod in Slavic mythology;
• Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Māori mythology

I'm going to predict right now that just as you disingenuously avoid admitting the intellectually invalid basis of your Creation "science," you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that, if faith is the validating foundation for your Creation "science" and as well as all of the above, then they MUST all be equally valid on their respective foundations in faith.

Another

delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

What i am saying is neanderthals brains were the result of the possibility of deformity,maybe from inbreeding.

Like how Adam and Eve and their Children did? Like Noah and his family did? And weren't you the one who insisted that such breeding leads to a genetically homogeneous population? Yet homo-sapiens is so diverse! Creationists have no explanation for this! It's INEXPLICABLE!

Another

delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

Mutations ans adapted organisms are not genetically stronger as Neo darwinism falsely teaches.

Example, Ranchers managing gene depletion is how ranchers breed out traits to produce meatier cows and cows that produce more milk.

You example PROVES you to be unambiguously wrong. Those "meatier cows and cows that produce more milk" a far more suited to their environment--"genetically stronger" if you will--than their root stock would be in an environment that selected for "meatier cows and cows that produce more milk."

Another

delivered to Youwerecreated.

Yet you cannot demonstrate I was wrong with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

What's up with that?

empirical evidence is observable evidence,list your observed evidence for macro-evolution.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]RING-FUCKING-SPECIES[/ame]

Another

delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

Still no one offering a list of beneficial mutations that did not lead to a loss of the origional genetic information.

Mutation DOES NOT necessarily, in EACH AND EVERY CASE, "lead to a loss of the original genetic information" from a species' gene pool.

When a mutation is not lethal and inheritable, that mutation NECESSARILY INCREASES GENETIC DIVERSITY in the species' gene pool; since you equate increased genetic diversity with increased genetic information, for you this NECESSARILY means that non-lethal MUTATION NECESSARILY INCREASES GENETIC INFORMATION in the species' gene pool.

Another

delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!

Once again you can see traits from both sides because genes have become fixed in each breed. That is because they only have genetic data to produce what they are.

Lions and tigers are not different sub-species, or breed, of a species ... they are DIFFERENT species, and the lack of reproductive potency between ligers due to their genetics literally PROVES it.

Is this from mutations or evolution or simply cross breeding ?

CHRIST! AGAIN? Obviously what we're looking at is the result of a hybrid cross between different species; a lion and a tiger in this case.

No problem at all for evolution, completely expected and thoroughly consistent with the theory; but another insurmountable problem for Creationism as ligers fail to "bring forth in ... ahem ... "kind""--that is to say that though male lions and female tigers ARE the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat, apparently male ligers and female ligers are strangely NOT the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat.

Care to explain that, Mr. Bible-Degree-in-Bible-Molecular-Bible-Biology?

Another delivered

to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

[T]here is the one question that you, or any Creationist, simply cannot answer. Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you, as [you] ask of us. It is the foundation of your "theory" yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE!

What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?​

The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity very strongly suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.

And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.

Another delivered

to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

Have you ever heard the creator is greater then the creation?

What "Creator"? Have you ever heard of using valid, verifiable evidence and valid logic to support your case?

What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?​

The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity very strongly suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.

Another delivered

to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

now imagine God.

AND THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS! Youwerecreated's very candid admission that this "God" of his must be imagined; is actually IMAGINARY!

 

[daws101]

I would like to introduce you to someone and his argument against your theory.

Can Neo-Darwinism Survive?
(This article comes from JohnDePoe.com to whom we are grateful).


In 1859 Charles Darwin published his seminal work, On the Origin of the Species. This publication sent the public in an uproar and has continued to do so to the present day. Why all the commotion over one book?

EDIT: SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS

Are you willing to follow the evidence where it points?


Can Neo-Darwinism Survive?: The Evidence Against Evolution


The author.

John M. DePoe


I am an Assistant Professor at Marywood University’s philosophy department. I have spent a lot of time pondering questions about knowledge, mind, and God. I may have even worked out some constructive answers to those questions.


Curriculum Vitae


EDIT: SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS





Education


EDIT: SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS



Publications


EDIT: SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS


For his research.

Philosophical Research & Interests

"I am an Assistant Professor at Marywood University’s philosophy department. I have spent a lot of time pondering questions about knowledge, mind, and God." CUE BUZZER........so you are NOT a biologist , paleontologist, geologist,physicist or a practitioner of any of the hard sciences ?
NO?
THEN YOUR THEORIES ON EVOLUTION MAKE ABOUT AS MUCH SENSE AS A ONE LEGGED MAN IN AN ASS KICKING CONTEST.

 

[daws101]

not sure what you mean by this post ? The bible is the word of god.

the bible is the word of men. Literally. Moses, matthew, john, etc...; men.

In their words--words of men, not the word of god--is where you have placed your conviction of certainty. You're just wrong again. So terribly, terribly, wrong again. Always, always, wrong; yet so certain you're right. Such is the nature of faith: the conviction of absolute certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic has been established; the obstinate strength of resolute denial of valid verifiable evidence and valid logic is the "validating" quality of faith.

your mind is so shut by obdurate faith, that it is shut also to god.

Sorry about your superstitious luck, retard.

they were inspired by god.

2ti 3:16 all scripture is god-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

now let's consider contradictions of your theory.

evolution contradictions - unexplained mysteries discussion forums

contradictions to the theory of evolution

caught in contradictions, pz myers claims "evolutionary theory predicts differences as well as similarities" (and therefore predicts nothing) (updated) - evolution news & views

does entropy contradict evolution?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hv-rqcdhew]evolution bloopers hoaxes and contradictions - youtube[/ame]

there you go you mental midget.

does it surprise anyone that all the links are to non scientific web sites and all the authors are non scientists?

 

[daws101]

really ? I have my own successful business. I have 8 children and 7 grand children. I have a beautiful home up on a mountain in arizona. Have the same wife i gladly married 30 years ago.

I played football.i played on a national paintball team.

I have horses and see gods beauty everytime we take them out for a ride. Outside of the stroke i have had a great life.

I am an ethical and honest person partly because of me but more so because the influence of my faith.

So i don't see my life as a waste either way. But i have zero doubt that there is no god and i will meet him when the time is right.

What if darwin was wrong ? He wasted his life chasing something that may have never happened. And his wild imagination took a whole lot of people down with him.

well you can think you see god all you want, the fact is you will die without proof. Because most likely he doesnt exist.

But what if darwin is wrong? Well see, my faith isnt evolution. Thats where you and i diverge, i dont form my opinions on faith.

If darwin is wrong, my opinion on the afterlife is no different. Your personality is just electrical connections in the brain. The concept of a soul comes from the feeling that your personality and your mind are separate from your body. While complex, its still biochemistry none-the-less.

So if darwin's wrong im still going to be certain in what i believe happens after death: Nothing. Your neurons stop firing and you will be dead.

maybe ,maybe not.

I should have posted this article sooner.

27. Twenty objections admitted

evolutionists themselves, even including darwin, admit as many as 20 objections to his theory. Darwin states the first four and prof. V. L. Kellogg sums up the remaining 16 on pp. 247-52 of "readings in evolution." among them are:

1. There must have been innumerable transitional forms in the formation of new species. No convincing evidence of these missing links exists.

2. Natural selection can not account for the instinct of animals such as that of the honey bee, "which has practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematics.":

4. The offspring of such nearly related species as can be crossed are sterile, showing that nature discourages and in no wise encourages the formation of new species.

5. The changes resulting from the use and disuse of organs are not inherited.

6. Since darwinism eliminates design, it is only the exploded ancient heathen doctrine of chance.

7. Variation is so slight as to be imperceptible, and, therefore, cannot account for the "survival of the fittest." if the same progressive changes do not occur generally, if not universally, in the numbers of the same species in the same period, no new species can arise. Such general changes do not occur.

8. Natural selection could not make use of initial slight changes. "what would be the advantage of the first few hairs of a mammal, or the first steps toward feathers in a bird, when these creatures were beginning to diverge from their reptilian ancestors?"

9. Even if darwinism should explain the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the survival of the fittest, which is far more important.

10. Darwin says, "i am convinced that natural selection has been the most important but not the exclusive means of modification." many scientists think it of very little importance, and that it is not true.

11. "the fluctuating variations of darwinism are quantitative, or plus and minus variations; whereas, the differences between species are qualitative." growth and development in one species does not produce a new species, which must be of a different kind. Miles darden, of tennessee, was 90 inches tall, and weighed 1000 pounds, but remained a member of the human species, though he was as high and heavy as a horse. So did the giant posius, over 10 feet tall, who lived in the days of augustus.

12. "there is a growing skepticism on the part of biologists as to the extreme fierceness of the struggle for existence and of the consequent rigor of selection." overproduction and shortage of space and food might sometime be a factor of importance, but has it been so in the past? Has it affected the human race?

13. Darwin proposed the theory of gemmules. Prof. H. H. Newman says, "this theory was not satisfactory even to darwin and is now only of historical interest."

14. Darwin's subsidiary theory of sexual selection has also been rejected by scientists as worthless.

In view of these and other objections, is it any wonder that darwin's theory has been so largely rejected by the scientific world?

And is it not amazing that self-styled "scientists" hold on to their precious theory of evolution, as if these objections had no weight? They can not save evolution even by rejecting darwinism.

Dr. Etheridge, famous fossilologist of the british museum, one of the highest authorities in the world, said: "nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." is a man in that position not a credible witness?

Prof. Beale, of king's college, london, a distinguished physiologist, said: "there is no evidence that man has descended from, or is, or was, in any way specially related to, any other organism in nature, through evolution, or by any other process. In support of all naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not, at this time, a shadow of scientific evidence."

prof virchow, of berlin, a naturalist of world wide fame, said: The attempt to find the transition from the .animal to man has ended in total failure. The middle link has not been found and never will be. Evolution is all nonsense. It can not be proved by science that man descended from the ape or from any other animal."

prof. Fleishman, of erlangen, who once accepted darwinism, but after further investigation repudiated it, said: "the darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it, in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but is purely the product of the imagination."

prof. Agassiz, one of the greatest scientists of any age, said: "the theory [of the transmutation of species] is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency there is not a fact known to science, tending to show that a single kind has ever been transmuted into any other."

dr. W. H. Thompson, former president of ny academy of medicine, said: "the darwinian theory is now rejected by the majority of biologists, as absurdly inadequate. It is absurd to rank man among the animals. His so called fellow animals, the primates--gorilla, orang and chimpanzee--can do nothing truly human."

sir william dawson, an eminent geologist, of canada, said: "the record of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists, especially in the abrupt appearance of new forms under specific types, and without apparent predecessors...paleontology furnishes no evidence as to the actual transformation of one species into another. No such case is certainly known. Nothing is known about the origin of man except what is told in scripture."

the foremost evolutionists, spencer, huxley and romanes, before their death, repudiated darwinism. Haeckel alone supported the theory and that by forged evidence.

Dr. St. George mivert, late professor of biology in the university college of kensington, calls darwinism a "puerile hypothesis."

dr. James orr, of edinburgh university, says: "the greatest scientists and theologians of europe are now pronouncing darwinism to be absolutely dead."

dr. Traas, a famous paleontologist, concludes: "the idea that mankind is descended from any simian species whatever, is certainly the most foolish ever put forth by a man writing on the history of man." does this apply to h. G. Wells?

Dr. N. S. Shaler, professor of geology, in harvard university, said: "it is not yet proved that a single species of the two or three millions, now inhabiting the earth had been established solely or mainly, by the operation of natural selection."

prof. Haeckel, a most extreme evolutionist, confesses: "most modern investigators of science have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of evolution, and particularly darwinism, is an error, and can not be maintained.

Prof. Huxley, said that evolution is "not proved and not provable."

sir charles bell, prof. Of the university college of london, says: "everything declares the species to have their origin in a distinct creation, not in a gradual variation from some original type."

these testimonies of scientists of the first rank are a part of a large number. Many of them and many more, are given in prof. Townsend's "collapse of evolution," mccann's "god or gorilla," philip mauro's "evolution at the bar," and other anti-evolution books. Alfred mccann, in his great work, "god or gorilla," mentions 20 of the most prominent scholars, who do not accept darwinism. Yet they say, "all scholars accept evolution."



for full article.

the evolution of man scientifically disproved

another non scientist.

 

[daws101]

played football.i played on a national paintball team.-ywc

if that's true, then was it after helmet's were introduced to the game?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ok since it was so easy to refute some of your points i had to.

"4. The offspring of such nearly related species as can be crossed are sterile, showing that nature discourages and in no wise encourages the formation of new species."

See: Mule

"5. The changes resulting from the use and disuse of organs are not inherited."

And if you think evolution says they are you should hit yourself in the head with a hammer


And this is my favorite:

"6. Since Darwinism eliminates design, it is only the exploded ancient heathen doctrine of chance."

OH WHAT A GREAT PIECE OF EVIDENCE.

"darwinism eliminates design." Oh im convinced!

First you have not refuted anything you give opinions but that is not refutation. That is a lie that evolutionist predicted fish living in a cave would lose their eyes that poor fish was the result of deformity through mutations. Mules are sterile and they are selectively bred by man. The reason they are sterile is they reached the limits of their dna compatibility that is the dna barrier you deny exists.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"peer reviewed"

Really? i doubt that, and if so i doubt his peers had very good things to say.

But what do you mean the body structures are still the same today? They arent, because theyre much more evolved. The Cambrian explosion is basically the transition from colonies of cells to full fledged multicellular organisms. Its not a short period of time either, its about 100 million years.

Living fossils.

Living-Fossils.com

How many times do i have to explain the same things to you over and over. If you would have read my point by point refutation of your idiocy you would have read the part about living fossils.

Evolution says some fish evolved into terapods. It does not say all fish evolve into terapods, that would be strange.

Besides, living fossils usually live in isolated environments. If a fish lives in an underwater cavern, it wont evolve into an air breathing terapod in a billion years. The environment necessary is just not there for it to happen.

Living fossils are wonderful evidence of evolution, because we find them in environments evolution predicts we should!

living fossils show no change which a is an argument against your theory. All organisms have mutations but all these creatures show no change what kind of nonsense are you trying to pass off ?

 

[daws101]

Ok since it was so easy to refute some of your points i had to.

"4. The offspring of such nearly related species as can be crossed are sterile, showing that nature discourages and in no wise encourages the formation of new species."

See: Mule

"5. The changes resulting from the use and disuse of organs are not inherited."

And if you think evolution says they are you should hit yourself in the head with a hammer


And this is my favorite:

"6. Since Darwinism eliminates design, it is only the exploded ancient heathen doctrine of chance."

OH WHAT A GREAT PIECE OF EVIDENCE.

"darwinism eliminates design." Oh im convinced!

First you have not refuted anything you give opinions but that is not refutation. That is a lie that evolutionist predicted fish living in a cave would lose their eyes that poor fish was the result of deformity through mutations. Mules are sterile and they are selectively bred by man. The reason they are sterile is they reached the limits of their dna compatibility that is the dna barrier you deny exists.