Darwinism

[teaberryeagle]

DARWINISM IS NOT SCIENCE.
IT IS A SHAMANISTIC RELIGION THAT
HAS ADOPTED NATURE AS A DEITY!

BY
HARUM YAHYA.COM

http://www.darwinistsdefeated.com/index.php

http://search.mywebsearch.com/mywebsearch/GGmain.jhtml?id=XPxdm044Y8us&ptb=6FB2136E-E83C-4C2C-9E29-E90C54AEF6DC&ind=2012013009&ptnrS=XPxdm044Y8us&si= CIGq8aP7960CFUHc4AodFixEsg&st=bar&n=77ece1d1&searc hfor=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2edarwinistsdefeated%2ecom%2 findex%2ephp+

Darwinism Watch
The Huffington Post Writer Nidhal Guessoum’s Errors Concerning Evolution 2012-01-18
The error of Al Jazeera TV's claim that evolution and religion might be reconciled must be made up for right away 2012-01-03
Why are Darwinist journals ceasing publication one after the other? 2011-06-19
Tales of ''Feathered Dinosaurs'' No Longer Deceive Anyone 2011-06-18
The Myth of the Evolution of Fish with Lungs 2011-06-01
No Darwinist is really a Darwinist at all 2011-06-01
The invalidity of the claim that ''objecting to evolution stems from a standard psychological unease'' 2011-06-01
The claim that Darwin was a scientist and evolution is a science 2011-05-29
The true face of the claim that ''everyone in the world believes in evolution'' 2011-05-29
The invalidity of claims regarding ''deep impact'' 2011-05-29

DARWINISM-WATCH.COM

http://www.darwinism-watch.com/

ATLAS OF CREATION


http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_02.php

[samfloor]

I don't know that this so called scientist could be more wrong. I have seen the dinosaur fossils with feathers, etc. He sounds like the Westboro Baptist church.

[rivalarrival]

Suppose someone told you they practiced "Dave-ism" - I'd think they were referring to obedience to the teachings of "Dave".

Such is the problem I have with the term "Darwinism". Darwin was not aware of the vast majority of the evidence available to us today. Because of this, he was no more equipped to make the subtle, nuanced conclusions about evolution than Newton was to discuss advanced aerodynamics, or Galileo was to pilot the space shuttle.

Evolution doesn't rely on Darwin's words any more than physics relies on Newton's three laws of motion. Darwin's theories were what he considered the best explanation for the evidence he observed. We have observed far more evidence than he ever did, and we've created our own theories that differ, subtly but significantly, from Darwin's.

True "Darwinism" - obedience to Darwin's words to the exclusion of all other ideas - would be completely absurd if anyone actually practiced it. But nobody does.

Science has a rich tradition of discarding imprecise theories. You don't see Newtonists locked in a crusade against Einsteinians over whose model of physics is superior. Similarly, Darwinian evolution has given way to modern evolutionary theory, which is more concerned with the exact mechanisms at work than it is with the general ideas Darwin discovered.

[RedJeepXJ]

This is too painful to even try to comment on.... this is the 21st century....

and people wonder why americans are so bad at science.... we put science behind faith...... what other country went that direction...... worked well for Iran

[Eddie_T]

Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ

This is too painful to even try to comment on.... this is the 21st century....

and people wonder why americans are so bad at science.... we put science behind faith...... what other country went that direction...... worked well for Iran

And many keep their head in the sand refusing to look at evidence that doesn't conform to their mindset. The Creationists that I read most address the pros and cons of all the evidence.

[rivalarrival]

Originally Posted by Eddie_T

And many keep their head in the sand refusing to look at evidence that doesn't conform to their mindset. The Creationists that I read most address the pros and cons of all the evidence.

How many of your Creationist friends have incorporated the "holy books" of non-christian faiths in their studies? Why do they not consider that "evidence"?

When science finds contradictory evidence, it casts doubt on the theory. When creationists find contradictory evidence, they cast doubt on the evidence that does not conform to their theory.

[Eddie_T]

Originally Posted by rivalarrival

How many of your Creationist friends have incorporated the "holy books" of non-christian faiths in their studies? Why do they not consider that "evidence"?

When science finds contradictory evidence, it casts doubt on the theory. When creationists find contradictory evidence, they cast doubt on the evidence that does not conform to their theory.

It sounds like you may have miss-categorized both sides.

[samfloor]

For the creationists to insist that dinosaurs were alive a few thousand years ago makes all their other claims look even more ridiculous.

[rivalarrival]

Originally Posted by Eddie_T

It sounds like you may have miss-categorized both sides.

You're the one who said creationists look at all the evidence and that scientists do not. Why do creationists rely on biblical scripture, but ignore the holy books of other religions? Because one set of books says that all others are invalid? What about when multiple books say all others are invalid?

Science embraces valid theories and abandons flawed theories. This is why there is a broad commercial market for GPS devices that rely on General Relativity, while manufacturers of "perpetual motion" and "over unity" devices can't turn a profit.