Give your one best shot - against evolution

Jet- evolutionary thought has been around for ages.Before natural selection became a widely accepted theory, they did a little experiement- they cut off the tails of more than 4 generations of rats. They figured that if you changed something mechanically, a new generation would inherit this quality. Why? Because they were looking for a mechanism that could drive evolution.Then natural selection came sliding along.It is true that the principle of evolution has existed for years, this principle being that animals adapted, or changed, over time- they evolved from a single ancestor. How or why, they did not know.You can continue to throw out claims, but you should also understand what you're saying.When natural selection was conceived, it was heralded by those scientists as a breakthrough. Others dismissed it. For now, it has withstood the test of time. The fossil record shows a undeniable pattern- primitve species lower, advanced specied higher. Microevolution is obsserved in laboratories as they battle diseases, etc. And the age of the earth, which is confirmed by a highly reliable and corroborated method of dating, C14, has shown that the earth is old enough to allow for time for species to evolve.Not to mention Stanley Miller's famous experiment where he demonstrated the possibility of spontaneous generation.

Well, at least you are not attempting to deny history. Some evolutionists actually do, perhaps in the hope that if their religious belief is viewed as completely scientific, it will be given more weight as being legitimate. Kudos!

*******Life Created in the Laboratory?
Scientists have conducted laboratory experiments to see whether primordial conditions could have given rise to the chemicals needed to produce life. None of these experiments claims to have created life, nor even to have come remotely close. Instead, they seek to show that the so-called "primordial soup" or "prebiotic soup" could have been formed by natural processes. This would mean that some of the most basic chemical building-blocks of proteinssuch as amino acidscould have been formed by natural processes. However, the gap between amino acids and proteins is astronomical, and so is the gap between proteins and living cells.
The Miller-Urey experiment, which featured electrical discharges into an atmosphere of ammonia, methane, hydrogen and water vapor, produced a great variety of organic substances, including various amino acids, and other DNA components. Does this lend credence to the idea that life could have arisen by natural processes?Dr. Wysong cites some of the common criticisms of the Miller-Urey experiment...The concentrations of methane and ammonia were chosen to approximate the constituents of the amino acid glycine. No evidence forces the use of this concentration, rather it is chosen with the express intent to produce organic molecules, not mimic early earth conditions. If the concentrations of methane and ammonia were high, no amino acids would obtain.
A methane-ammonia reducing atmosphere would be highly toxic to life.
The geochemist, Abelson, states: "The hypothesis of an early methane-ammonia atmosphere is found to be without solid foundation and indeed is contradicted." ...
The Miller apparatus is designed to produce. If the products formed in the spark-discharge tube were not removed from the energy used to form them, they would be more readily degraded than synthesized. ...
The experiments have provided only the building blocks of life, never the highly ordered, information carrying, optically active (D or L) molecules characteristic of lifelet alone anything even suggestive of a living entity.[50], pp. 221-222.
Similar criticisms can be made against other such experiments, such as that of Sydney Fox. Because of the artificial, carefully controlled nature of these experiments, the Evolutionist Peter Mora writes:
Such experiments are no more than exercises in organic chemistry.[51], p. 230.
Evolution Is Not Science
by Mitch Cervinka
M.A. Mathematics*******

123

'Fine tuned irreducible' complexities and systems take place on stellar levels, atomic levels, organismic levels, and anthropological levels and can never spontaneously generate.
In sum, evolution of fine-tuned irreducible complexities and systems defies any empirical mechanism.

This has been directly observed to evolve. Would you like an example?

quote:

---

Would you like to give some examples of the ways in which Neo-Darwinism (I'm not a neo-Darwinist, btw) rehashes old philosophy and pagan beliefs. I can then respond to a a detailed argument and we can take it from there?
Possibly you should start a new topic for that. I look forward to engaging with your arguments.

---

Come on, Jet! Why won't you take part in discussion. So far all you seem to do is cut and paste quotes from others or reply with dismissive one-liners. What's the point of logging on to a forum to do that?Come on, just one little exchange of views, please?

I am still waiting for your "one quote per day" refutation. You arbitrarily dismissed thousands of quotes from evolutionists that were critical, in one way or another, of Darwinian evolution. I see no logical reason for entering into a discussion with those who would simply dismiss so many comments made by evolution scientists simply on the basis of their disagreement with Darwinian thinking. It is a fruitless endeavor and a waste of time for the both of us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
I am still waiting for your "one quote per day" refutation. You arbitrarily dismissed thousands of quotes from evolutionists that were critical, in one way or another, of Darwinian evolution. I see no logical reason for entering into a discussion with those who would simply dismiss so many comments made by evolution scientists simply on the basis of their disagreement with Darwinian thinking. It is a fruitless endeavor and a waste of time for the both of us.

---

I said I could perhaps manage to refute a quote a day becuase of time pressure and I stressed I was not a neo-Darwininian. Indeed many of the comments critical of neo-Darwinism I would agree with, but I (and many quoted in the site you copied) would still hold fast to a belief in evolution.
What I would like to do, as I made clear, was engage with you on your opinions.
Of course, your opinions may just be the cumulative result of spouting the quotes of others, but lets find out.

Mr P, well done on your preliminary analysis (at message #43) of Jet's quotes and putting the lie to his claim that "many of the quotes are from leading scientists over the past two decades." Should this be taken as an indication of Jet's ability to provide accurate information?Jet, why don't you go for quality instead of quantity? What is your best "quote", the most recent, compelling, best supported statement from the "leadingest" scientist from your list at message #28? Maybe we can then examine that particular quote in detail to assess if it is as fatal to the theory of evolution as you think it is.By the way, my request for you to "prove" certain things about yourself was quite appropriate where that person's concept of "proof" appears to be based on personal belief.

Jet:I'd like to second the requests you pick out one or two quotes from that massive quote-mine you posted. Select a couple that you personally feel really damning to the evilutionist cause. This would permit three things:1. It would show proof positive that you actually read the quotes rather than simply cutting-and-pasting a massive post in some sort of Gish-ian barrage tactic;2. It would show proof positive that you actually had an opinion, rather than simply regurgitating venom - hence something worthy of discussion; and3. It would allow someone who has a life outside of this board to actually discuss the issues you raise without being accused of "ignoring evidence".BTW: For all, if you're interested in at least one place where our good Jet is getting some of his diatribes, you might read Mitch Cervinka's website. Cervinka expends copious amounts of bandwidth rehashing the old, trite, oft-refuted anti-science claims of ICR, ARN, AiG, etc. Cervinka's really got it in for evolutionary biologists and science. He must have had a bad experience as a child...

No Proven Links. Where are the links other than theory?------------------
Gary Reason
asmsucler@vps.msu.edu

Don't mistake theory with hypothesis. Theories have evidence. Hypotheses are guesses at what might happen with an experiment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Reason:
No Proven Links. Where are the links other than theory?

---

That was a short answer! Perhaps too short. No proven links between what? Can you expand the point a bit? I will gladly reply when I have a better idea of what you're getting at. Thanks.

Jet, are you going to take up my suggestion of discussing your best quotation?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gary Reason:
[B]No Proven Links. Where are the links other than theory?Not just where are the links? ... Where are the CHAINS (other than in theory)?