Darwinism has failed:
"My main criticism of Darwinism is that it fails in its initial objective, which is to explain the origin of species. I mean it fails to explain the emergence of organisms, the specific forms during evolution like algae and ferns and flowering plants, corals, starfish, crabs, fish, birds. What it does provide is a partial theory of adaptation, or microevolution (small- scale adaptive changes in organisms). The large-scale differences of form between types of organism that are the foundation of biological classification systems seem to require a principle other than natural selection operating on small variations, some process that gives rise to distinctly different forms of organism. So Darwin's assumption that the tree of life is a consequence of the gradual accumulation of small hereditary differences appears to be without significant support. Some other process is responsible for the emergent properties of life, those distinctive features that separate one group of organisms from another, such as fishes and amphibians, worms and insects, horsetails and grasses."
Professor Brian Goodwin, Professor of Biology, Open University, UK
15 Problems with Evolution
&list=PL30625BE349356C17
Originally posted by RJHindsEvery professor you find that doubts evolution I can find ten, or even hundred, professors that believes in evolution.
Darwinism has failed:
"My main criticism of Darwinism is that it fails in its initial objective, which is to explain the origin of species. I mean it fails to explain the emergence of organisms, the specific forms during evolution like algae and ferns and flowering plants, corals, starfish, crabs, fish, birds. What it does provide is a partial theory of a ...[text shortened]... 15 Problems with Evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4hTmRKz8rc&list=PL30625BE349356C17
Originally posted by Proper KnobMeaning that the joker RJH has been trying to fool us. This lower his reputation to a level that only can be matched by his own low esteem of himself.
A bit of investigative work reveals that Professor Goodwin doesn't dispute for one moment that life evolved, he's questioning 'how' life evolved.
No wonder why RJH doesn't have any friends...
Originally posted by RJHindsYou change the topic from evolution to something else. Does that mean that you accept that you were wrong in your previous attempt?
The discovery of Noah's Ark disputes evolution and proves the Bible to be true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCyOVGBnNp8
The ark has nothing to do with evolution, you know that. A straw man, perhaps? RJH, my friend, you are busted. Stick with the topic at hand. Don't hijack your own thread.
Genetics: No Friend of Evolution
Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, and Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolution, were contemporaries. At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could change into other creatures, Mendel was showing that even individual characteristics remain constant. While Darwin's ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance, Mendel's conclusions were based on careful experimentation. Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the fiction of evolution.
The discovery of the principles of recombination was Gregor Mendel's great contribution to the science of genetics. Mendel showed that while traits might be hidden for a generation they were not usually lost, and when new traits appeared it was because their genetic factors had been there all along. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there.
Among the creatures Darwin observed on the Galapagos islands were a group of land birds, the finches. In this single group, we can see wide variation in appearance and in life-style. Darwin provided what I believe to be an essentially correct interpretation of how the finches came to be the way they are. A few individuals were probably blown to the islands from the South American mainland, and today's finches are descendants of those pioneers. However, while Darwin saw the finches as an example of evolution, we can now recognize them merely as the result of recombination within a single created kind. The pioneer finches brought with them enough genetic variability to be sorted out into the varieties we see today.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v20/n2/genetics
Originally posted by RJHindsYour true friends the demons are whispering in you ears.
Genetics: No Friend of Evolution
Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, and Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolution, were contemporaries. At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could change into other creatures, Mendel was showing that even individual ch ...[text shortened]... into the varieties we see today.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v20/n2/genetics
Originally posted by FabianFnasI just repeated what Professor Brian Goodwin has been quoted as writing. That does not make me in league with the devil and demons.
Meaning that the joker RJH has been trying to fool us. This lower his reputation to a level that only can be matched by his own low esteem of himself.
No wonder why RJH doesn't have any friends...
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe discovery of Noah's Ark proves the Genesis Flood story was true and if Genesis is true then that proves evolution or, more accurately, evilution is false. Simple as that.
You change the topic from evolution to something else. Does that mean that you accept that you were wrong in your previous attempt?
The ark has nothing to do with evolution, you know that. A straw man, perhaps? RJH, my friend, you are busted. Stick with the topic at hand. Don't hijack your own thread.
Originally posted by RJHindsAnother strawman, tell us just how we KNOW this supposed artifact was Noah's ark? You see any dinosaur poop on it? Any fish scales stuck in the wood? Any bits of food left over and fossilized?
The discovery of Noah's Ark proves the Genesis Flood story was true and if Genesis is true then that proves evolution or, more accurately, evilution is false. Simple as that.
It is just in your obsessive mind whatever was found there proved anything about the Ark story.
Originally posted by sonhouseIt has been declared to be officially Noah's Big Boat by the Turkish government and they have made a visitor center and a National park at the site.
Another strawman, tell us just how we KNOW this supposed artifact was Noah's ark? You see any dinosaur poop on it? Any fish scales stuck in the wood? Any bits of food left over and fossilized?
It is just in your obsessive mind whatever was found there proved anything about the Ark story.