["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:28:08 +0000 (UTC),
Uncle Davey <noway@jose.com> wrote:
>
> "LaurieAppIeton" <laurieappieton@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:laurieappieton-20040124035057.21792.00000635@mb-m06.aol.com...
>> Richard Dawkins claims that even if no factual evidence for Darwin's
> theory is
>> available, it is certainly justifiable to accept it.
>>
>> How about that for scientific method?
>>
>> Now, considering that:
>>
>> 1) no natural process which resulted in information forming automatically
> in
>> matter, has ever been observed;
>>
>> 2) no transition form one kind to another has ever been observed;
>>
>> 3) all fossils represent complete perfect organisms;
>>
>> 4)the fossil record shows evidence of catastroph, abruptness, diversity
> and
>> stasis;
>>
>> 5) microevolution is not a proof of evolution, since it is predicted by
>> creationism;
>>
>> 6) speciation is not a proof of evolution, since it never generates new
> DNA
>> information and is predicted by creationism;
>>
>> 7) information is a non material quality that must not be confused with
>> sequences of signs; even if a monkey could type Hamlet by chance, we would
>> still need a code (outside the text) to recognize Hamlet as such.
>>
>> 8) homology arguments don't prove evolution, since they point to common
>> designer;
>>
>> 9) the so-called vestigial organs are not vestigial after all; they have a
>> precise function:junk-DNA is not junk after all;
>>
>> 10) embryo's recapitulation has been proved to be non-sense. Haeckel was
> about
>> to deceive people.
>>
>> 11) the links are still missing and many "extinct" fossils have been found
> to
>> be living after all;
>>
>> 12) creationist white-hole cosmology seems more plausible than ever, if
> the
>> Proceedings of the American Academy of Sciences is any indication.
>>
>> I have to conclude that, as far as the facts are concerned, my creationist
>> "faith" is doing much better than Dawkins' evolutionary "science". Better
>> still, my "faith" is real science. Dawkins' "science" is real faith.
>>
>>
>> If you are, for some reason, not happy with supporting sodomy
>> or atheism or the groups seeking to destroy Christian values,
>> then join with me in destroying the poison root of this filth.
>> - Laurie AppIeton
>>
>
> Hi Laurie, nice post.
Why don't you tell us what's nice about it Uncle Davey. Be specific. Show
why you think each point is valid.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 |
|