Thread: Cmmon sense about Abortion that ALL should agree on.

this part is basically the part i'm fixated on. they've never been able to explain this.

According to the theory, all living things have descended from various "ancestral" forms. A living species that existed before gradually turned into another species, and every present species emerged in this way. According to the theory, this transition took place slowly over hundreds of millions of years and progressed in stages. That being the case, countless numbers of "intermediate forms" must have emerged and lived over the long process of transition in question. And a few of them must certainly have been fossilized.

Richard Dawkins who has been referred to as Darwins Bulldog has made several Bold and interesting statements.

You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution.
-- Richard Dawkins, in Lanny Swerdlow, "My Sort Interview with Richard Dawkins" (Portland, Oregon, 1996)

It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).
-- Richard Dawkins, quoted from Josh Gilder, a creationist, in his critical review, "PBS's 'Evolution' series is propaganda, not science" (September, 2001)

HMM, so much for tolerance and diversity. But I wonder how he would explain this?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EVOLUTION WATCH
'Who's Who' list challenging Darwin grows
100 more of the world's top scientists express skepticism of theory

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 11, 2007
10:28 p.m. Eastern



© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


The list truly is a "Who's Who" of prominent scientists in the world today, and now another 100 ranking leaders have added their signatures to a challenge to Darwin's theory of evolution.

It's for those who have reached the epitome of their fields, but still are questioning the validity of the Darwinian philosophy and want to put their concerns in writing.

The names include top scientists as MIT, UCLA, Ohio State, University of Washington, University of Pennsylvania, University of Georgia, Harvard, the College of Judea and Samaria, Johns Hopkins, Texas A&M, Duke, University of Peruglia in Italy, the British Museum and others.

"Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology," said Michael Egnor, a professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook, and an award-winning brain surgeon who was picked as one of New York's top doctors by "New York Magazine."

The list includes representatives from the studies of chemistry, biology, dendrology, genetics, molecular biology, organic synthesis, quantum chemistry, bacteriology, astrophysics, mathematics, geriatrics, entomology, economics, biochemistry, physics, electrochemistry, nuclear engineering and is available at www.dissentfromdarwin.org. It's maintained by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

The list represents the most educated people in the world from all branches of science with one thing on common – agreement with the following statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

"We know intuitively that Darwinism can accomplish some things but not others," said Egnor, who has signed the statement. "The question is what is that boundary? Does the information content in living things exceed that boundary? Darwinists have never faced those questions. They've never asked scientifically, can random mutation and natural selection generate the information content in living things."

John West, associate director of the Center for Science & Culture, said more scientists than ever before are "standing up and saying that it is time to rethink Darwin's theory of evolution in light of new scientific evidence that shows the theory is inadequate."

"Darwinists are busy making up holidays to turn Charles Darwin into a saint, even as the evidence supporting his theory crumbles and more and more scientific challenges to it emerge," West said.

The list of signatories, now numbering 700, also includes member scientists from National Academies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India (Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland and the U.S.

Many of the signers are professors or researchers at major universities and international research institutions such as Cambridge University, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, Ben-Gurion University in Israel.

The organization assembling the list said "the public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true. Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things."

However, the documentation actually reveals that in recent decades, "new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, 'artificial intelligence' research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail."

"The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second," the website says. The list was launched in 2001.

The list is for scientists who have a Ph.D in engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry or one of the other natural sciences who agree with the statement on Darwin, officials said.

There's a separate location called www.DoctorsDoubtingDarwin.com for medical doctors who have similar concerns.

Members of the Discovery Institute submit articles and analyses for dialogue through seminars, conferences and debates, and they produce reports, articles, books, congressional testimony and films to spread the Institute's ideas.

"The point of view Discovery brings to its work includes a belief in God-given reason and the permanency of human nature; the principles of representative democracy and public service expounded by the American Founders; free market economics domestically and internationally; the social requirement to balance personal liberty with responsibility; the spirit of voluntarism crucial to civil society; the continuing validity of American international leadership; and the potential of science and technology to promote an improved future for individuals, families and communities," the group said.

I guess all these College educated, intelligent people are INSANE!!!! MWAHAHAHA.

For part II please see my next post.

Phillip Johnson Professor of law and Author of Darwin on Trial.

For scientific materialist the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. We might therefore more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism First Things November 1997 †

My purpose was to show that what is presented to the public as scientific knowledge about evolutionary mechanisms is mostly philosophical speculation and is not even consistent with the evidence once the naturalistic spectacles are removed. If that leaves us without a known mechanism of biological creation, so be it: it is better to admit ignorance than to have confidence in an explanation that is not true. Reason in the Balance (1995) p.12 †


PLEASE everyone on both sides of this issue read Darwin on Trial, it is a truly impressive read that stays away from religion for the most part and just asks pointed questions about whether we can believe in any variation of Darwinism to explain life on earth.

If you need any evidence though that Naturalistic science can be its own religion read these eyebrow raising comments by Richard Dawkins who has admitted SEVERAL times that Darwin allowed him to ignore God.

I toyed with atheism from the age of about nine, originally because I worked out that, of all the hundreds of religions in the world, it was the sheerest accident that I was brought up Christian. They couldn’t all be right, so maybe none of them was. I later reverted to a kind of pantheism when I realised the shattering complexity and beauty of the living world. Then, around the age of 16, I first understood that Darwinism provides an explanation big enough and elegant enough to replace gods. I have been an atheist ever since. You Ask The Questions Independent February 20 2003


Any creationist lawyer who got me on the stand could instantly win over the jury simply by asking me: 'Has your knowledge of evolution influenced you in the direction of becoming an atheist?' I would have to answer yes. The God Hypothesis (2006) p.68


In closing, I will provide you with one more quote from Dawkins...

Next time somebody tells you something that sounds important, think to yourself, 'Is this the kind of thing that people probably know because of evidence or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition, authority or revelation?' And next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them, 'What kind of evidence is there for that?' And if they can't give you a good answer, I hope you'll think very carefully before you believe a word they say. The Devil's Chaplain (2003) p.248

Now consider asking that question to your high school science teacher. We are taught and many accept the theory of evolution based on respect for the Authority of the textbook authors and our teachers who all MUST be better educated on these subjects than us...arent they?

Originally Posted by pepperpot

No, you did....there's huge 'steps' missing in the 'order' of things.......what caused these 'changes' and brought them up to the 'next level'?....

but most importantly...where are the fossils of the intermediate species? i could understand certain instances bringing forth "changes" such as drastic climate change, gravitational influences, supervolcano's and the like, massive tectonic plate changes, etc.........blah blah...i should have went to school for this stuff. it's overwhelming.

Originally Posted by pepperpot

Yes, but suppose there was a catalyst that caused 'evolution' to skip a few steps (hence no fossils)...

That's where I think the two are integrated...(religion and science)....divine intervention of sorts?

Good point, except MOST scientists REFUSE to acknowledge even that God may have caused the big bang and then some things aligned etc. They wont be happy until They have found some mechanism that explains EVERYTHING so they can say...SEE it COULD happen by chance! There is no God!

AND most Darwinists realize that there is no catalyst that can account for the formation of such an organ as the eye. In multiple species no less!

The Canbrian explosion is absolutely MYSTIFYING to most scientists, but makes perfect sense to the religious person.

Originally Posted by suprtruckr

i was taught how to treat a woman, my mom taught me well

I'm sure you were. I just meant that he said we should teach our daughters about how bad some men can be. I just thought it would be better to also teach our son's how to treat women.

Originally Posted by ahippiechic

I'm sure you were. I just meant that he said we should teach our daughters about how bad some men can be. I just thought it would be better to also teach our son's how to treat women.

AMEN!!!!... i have 3 boys, and I try my best to teach them right