As any "Godly" argument I make is immediately attacked by Mitch (Copycat) or Karl (Tyrfingr), one claiming to have lost his faith, to 'logic,' the other having been deprived of any religious training altogether, I will temporarily cease argument from a Christians view, to point out a few of the scientific objections to your god; Darwin.
(Facetiously,) here is how evolution believing scientists think.
After having dug to a depth of 10 feet last year, New York
scientists found traces of a copper-wire system dating back 100 years, and they came to the conclusion that their ancestors already had a telephone network more than 100 years ago.
Not to be outdone by New Yorkers, in the weeks that followed, California scientists dug to a depth of 20 feet, and shortly after, headlines in the LA Times newspaper read: 'California archaeologists have found traces of 200 year old copper-wire system and have concluded that their ancestors already had an advanced high-tech communications network a hundred years earlier than the New Yorkers'.
East Texas reported the following: 'After digging as deep as 30 feet in a corn field
near Hideaway texas, Bubba Wayne, a Texas A&M archaeologist, reported that he found absolutely nothing. Bubba has therefore concluded that 300 years ago, East Texas had already gone wireless.
Unfortunately, this is kind of wishful thinking used by evolutionist scientists as there has never been one single legitimate piece of evidence for evolution. You keep saying "we have the fossils" but you have never shown me a single transitional fossil.
When I am asked "do you you believe in evolution?" I respond with: are you asking about microevolution or macroevolution?" By forcing the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" into the answer, this confronts the trap and properly frames the
real issue.
When people say "evolution," most are referring to macroevolution or if you will, Darwinism. Serious thinkers have problems with theories of macroevolution and this shows one to be informed, not a member of the lunatic fringe.
If you say microevolution, where an organism adapts to its environment with the flexibility already built into its existing DNA, then yes I believe in that; we see it every day in nature. But if you mean macroevolution, where mutations stack on one another to create entirely new organ systems and transform one species into a totally different species, then I, along with many well-credentialed scientists, have serious problems with that theory."
The common attack used by Darwinists is to point to
scientifically-provable microevolution and charge the critic with being an anti-science religious zealot.
A series of polls from the Gallup poll to the Newsweek poll show that about half of Americans have problems with Darwinian macroevolution. Such a position may be out of step with the majority of the press, but it's not out of step with a majority of Americans.
There is a multitude of scientists who express such concerns. Models like the doctrine of irreducible complexity explain that many organs like the eye require dozens of different component parts, each made of millions or billions of complex cells,
all working together to function. It argues such organs cannot evolve over time because even if such an organ is 99% complete, it still has 0% function, and thus does not do anything to help the species. This model suggests organs must be entirely present and perfectly placed together with other complex organs.
No theory of macroevolution has an explanation for how such organs can come about. Regardless of what you believe, it's a fair point for a rational person to make and that does not rely on any religious belief.
It's a scientific objection, not just a religious one.
Sorry if I broadsided you again guys. You'll just have to stop gloating until one of you comes up with an incredibly lengthy response that has little connection & no possible answer. *Rolls eyes*
Quote:
In response to Karl's: "Democracy for instance has rallied as many followers as christianity, the one promises freedom, equality and peace. The other promises the same for the soul. Both are constructed by the same kind of men who makes profit of each.
"Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy" - Plato
Which is fairly easily seen these days i think.
|
I can easily answer this in that the USA was founded as a REPUBLIC (constitutionally based, limited rights of the government) form of government, NOT a (socialist) popular vote, democracy. Unfortunately, it is becoming a democracy as entitlements increase and the people give away their country and rights for them.