He also made comment surprising Medved, that he thought there should be a huge stimulus and a bailout of the auto industry. I said that I didn’t because I saw the prods and rewards of a free and uncorrupted market as inherent in God’s design of human beings just as Stein and I see design in complex biological organisms.

In the process of doing that, I remarked that though Stein did believe in evolution and I didn’t find it philosophically impermissable, I didn’t find the case at all compelling. BobXXXX chimed in with the incisive and novel comment that I had no business commenting on evolution because I was scientifically ignorant. I responded but he never returned.

After Googling BobXXXX and searching Blog sites where it appeared, it seems he’s a rather pathetic evolutionist gadfly who makes a diversion of searching for comments questioning evolution and leaving comments about people’s ignorance and illiteracy. And, he does so without engaging anyone and without leaving an address where he might be engaged.

I did find a few profiles corroborating the fact that he is 59 years old. What a worthy pastime for one’s later years, eh? I feel sorry for him, AND I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHO HE IS! If only he knew that life was meant to be so much fuller.

“The white moths and black moths of England is a perfect example.”

You do know this experiment was a great fraud. It was proven that the black moths where painted and glued to the threes for the picture that was taken. You should do better research before you build your arguement around a hoax. Well I guess ultimatle evolution in its current incarnation is the greatest hoax being passed as science.

Macro Evolution has no evidence. Evolutionist try to take genetic adaptation or micro evolution as proof to their stance, with no regard to real objectivity or science.

I see two problems already. They are called biologists, not evolutionists. It doesn’t require faith to accept the facts of evolution because those facts have evidence, tons of evidence, powerful evidence, evidence that’s growing every day, evidence that would take a huge library of books to explain it all.

All alternatives to the science of evolution are religious alternatives. For example there is intelligent design, which are code words that mean ‘magically created’. No matter what uneducated people call their creation myth, it’s still magic and of course it’s not science.

This is 2008, not the Dark Ages. There’s no excuse for denying evolution anymore. Anyone who makes an honest effort to study evolution could not possibly deny it.

Creationists should study the evidence from molecular biology and genetics. If they studied it, and if they were able to understand it, they would have to agree all life is related and all life shares common ancestors. For example this extremely powerful evidence has proven beyond any doubt people and chimps share an ancestor. This is a fact that’s been proven countless times. Look it up. Don’t be afraid to do your own research. Don’t be afraid of studying the discoveries of modern science as explained by the scientists who made those discoveries. Unfortunately creationists prefer to get all their information from liars who have never discovered anything.

Creationists have many problems. One of their problems is they think their total ignorance of science is equal to the knowledge of the entire scientific community. Then they wonder why biologists laugh at them.

They refuse to hear how the general theory of evolution (gte) might not be the ‘rock-solid’ entity they BELIEVE it to be. It almost gets to the point where they cover their ears and shout ‘blasphemy!’

The passion and emotionalism with which they defend the gte belies the fact that it really is a philosophical system instead of a scientific theory based on observable science.

For people who are supposed to be driven by logic and reason some of them sure let their emotions get the best of them.

“In it, Darwin makes “one long argument,” with copious empirical examples as support, for his theory that “groups” of organisms, (now called populations) rather than individual organisms, gradually evolve through the process of natural selection—a mechanism effectively introduced to the public at large by the book. The work presents detailed scientific evidence he had accumulated both on the Voyage of the Beagle in the 1830s and since his return, painstakingly laying out his theory and refuting the doctrine of “Created kinds” underlying the theories of Creation biology which were then widely accepted.”

I hope that clears things up.

Evolution is just a theory and needs to be treated as such. However, Natural Selection is proven. There is no doubt about it, because I can repeat it over and over and over again. The white moths and black moths of England is a perfect example.

Anyways, why not stick with what you know.

Rob

(Fred)

Simon, YOU may not think evolutionary theory does not attempt, and is not concerned with, the actual creation of the first life, but I can quote to you Darwinian source after Darwinian source that would say this about evolution and that you are flat wrong. Every major Darwinianist who has actually thought through the ramifications of his worldview, would disagree with you and would not concede your point. You are unique in the realm of Darwinians.

Fred

Having read “The Blind Watchmaker” (TWICE), I somehow do not get the impression that Richard Dawkins (one of the modern High Priests of Darwinism) beleves evolution only accounts for the origins of species but that it’s kosher scientifically for you to believe that life arose from some Intelligent Designer. Quite the opposite. I challenge to fine any MODERN mainstream evolutionists who says we can ignore evolution in accounting for the origin of life! (A side note: “The Origin of Species” wwold be banned as a textbook by the ACLU if it were written today, since Darwin does mention a “Creator” in the last chapter.)

As long as you’re happy to concede that evolutionary theory does not attempt, and is not concerned with, the actual creation of the first forms of life, and therefore cannot be criticised for failing to provide answers, fine.

“Moreover, it is far from being “disingenuous” to assert that evolutionary theory, broadly speaking, does attempt to account for the origins of life as we know it today. Even the book upon which evolutionary theory is founded is entitled, The Origin of Species.”

Yes, the origin of the SPECIES. Not of LIFE.

If you want to discuss the origin of LIFE, or the creation of the first spark of life, fine. But be specific, or people like me will take you to taks for being vague and disingenuous.