Summations Only

For some reason, some words from a Supertramp song come to mind: "Dreamer; you're nothing but a dreamer."

Yes, now, though earlier that was used to disprove Darwin. Much to the delight of creationist quote-miners.Darwin knew that these traits were inherited and he knew that new traits could arise, but he didn't know how. Although he had Mendel's monograph on his bookshelf, there is no indication that he had ever read it.Instead, Darwin was hampered with a paint-mixing analogy, in which new traits were some new tint being mixed in, but there was no way for such new traits in such small quantities to become expressed in the final mixture of paint.What Darwin came up with was Pangenetic theory, which Dr. Jonathan Miller, MD, characterized as Darwin accepting Lamarck's discarded idea of acquired characteristics, thus mounting the "Ladder of Life" fallacy (Darwin for Beginners.Of course, it was wrong, but it was now part of "Darwinism." So when researchers "discovered" Mendelian genetics and mutations and started experimenting with mutations, they all loudly proclaimed Darwin to be wrong! About inheritance, yes. But what about all the other stuff? Doesn't matter. Creationists have loads of quotes declaring Darwin to be wrong (about inheritance) so that's all that they need.It was later in the 1930's and 1940's that some, such as Fischer, began to realize that Mendelian genetics provided the missing piece of Darwin's ideas and thus was born neo-Darwinism.ABE:
Many creationist quotings of scientists declaring Darwin to be wrong date from the early part of the 20th Century when geneticists were pointing out quite correctly that his Pangenetic Theory was wrong. They weren't talking about his ideas about the origin of species, but rather his mistaken ideas about how inheritance works.Edited by dwise1, : ABE

So point out in his data where he is wrong.

Yet another post where creationists can't address the facts.

Some words from the Bible come to mind:

quote:

---

Matthew 7:3-5 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

---

Hey, come to think of it, chimps beat humans into space, didn't they? And I'm pretty sure a chimp in England invented the first computer. Oh, and let's not forget that even though the Hubble Space Telescope was put into space by humans, it was actually designed and built by a team of chimps.

"I didn't say Talk Origins is an atheist web site.""I wouldn't worry about anything from that discredited atheist web site." Huh? The first quote is mine but the second quote belongs to CRR. But thank you for confusing me with the redoubtable CRR - that's a compliment.--------------------------------------------------Talk Origins is officially philosophically neutral, but un-officially atheistic.

Since I wrote, "Do you I might be retarded?", then I may well be retarded. But "Do you think I might be retarded?" sounds less retarded. ------------------------------------My religious views don't hold me back - by rejecting evolution I am missing out on exactly nothing, as far as science is concerned. This is due to the mathematical principle: evolution = zero. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Science cannot answer every scientific question. For example, science will never be able to provide a rational answer to the question,"How could something as functionally and irreducibly complex as a living organism possibly have come into existence?"This is because science is so puny and limited it can only scratch the surface of reality. In the face of the miracles performed by our Creator, God Almighty, science is laughably useless. (Picture a toddler with a plastic sword taking on all the armies of the world.)

Oh, for sure - microevolutionary theory - which is not in any way, shape or form dependant on the theory that all life shares a common ancestor; an empty theory which is utterly irrelevant to applied science.It a great shame that a theory that should have been confined to the lunatic fringe has managed to infiltrate, contaminate and distort many fields of true science. Such is the power of Satan to deceive human beings.Show a Darwinist natural selection and he sees a whale evolving from a rodent; show a Darwinist a chicken and he sees a feathered dinosaur.

In the interests of fairness and intellectual rigour, you need to consider the distinct possibility that many cultures in the ancient Middle East owe their folklore to the Bible and Hebrew folklore, not the other way around.

Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia

Garden of Eden

​

The parallels between the stories of Enkidu/Shamhat and Adam/Eve have been long recognized by scholars.[23] In both, a man is created from the soil by a god, and lives in a natural setting amongst the animals. He is introduced to a woman who tempts him. In both stories the man accepts food from the woman, covers his nakedness, and must leave his former realm, unable to return. The presence of a snake that steals a plant of immortality from the hero later in the epic is another point of similarity.

​

Advice from Ecclesiastes

​

Several scholars suggest direct borrowing of Siduri's advice by the author of Ecclesiastes.[24]

​

A rare proverb about the strength of a triple-stranded rope (a triple-stranded rope is not easily broken) is common to both books.

​

Noah's Flood

​

Andrew George submits that the Genesis flood narrative matches that in Gilgamesh so closely that "few doubt" that it derives from a Mesopotamian account.[25] What is particularly noticeable is the way the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh flood tale "point by point and in the same order", even when the story permits other alternatives.[26] In a 2001 Torah commentary released on behalf of the Conservative Movement of Judaism, rabbinic scholar Robert Wexler stated: "The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia. These stories then diverged in the retelling."[27] Ziusudra, Utnapishtim and Noah are the respective heroes of the Sumerian, Akkadian and biblical flood legends of the ancient Near East.

​

Other biblical parallels

​

Matthias Henze suggests that Nebuchadnezzar's madness in the biblical Book of Daniel draws on the Epic of Gilgamesh. He claims that the author uses elements from the description of Enkidu to paint a sarcastic and mocking portrait of the king of Babylon.[28]

​

While not directly discussed in the Epic itself, many of the characters in the Epic also have myths associated with them with close biblical parallels, notably Ninti, the Sumerian goddess of life, was created from Enki's rib to heal him after he had eaten forbidden flowers. Some scholars suggest that this served as the basis for the story of Eve created from Adam's rib in the Book of Genesis.[29] Esther J. Hamori, in Echoes of Gilgamesh in Jacob Story, also claims that the myth of Jacob and Esau is paralleled with the wrestling match between Gilgamesh and Enkidu.

Why do you think scientists disagree with you (a non-scientist, habitual liar, and crackpot) about what belongs in "true science" and what belongs to the "lunatic fringe"? What a peculiar lie. Whom do you hope to deceive by telling it?

Then there is 5 Near-Identical Jesus Christ Myths That Predate JesusPersonally I like the Mithra version

quote:

---

3. Mithra (2000 B.C.)

​

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia

​

An ancient Zoroastrian deity with similarities to Jesus.

​

• Virginal birth on December 25th.
• Swaddled and laid in a manger.
• Tended by shepherds in the manger.
• He had 12 companions (or disciples).
• Performed miracles.
• Gave his own life to save the world.
• Dead for three days, then resurrected.
• Called the Way, the Truth and the Light.
• Has his own version of a Eucharistic-style Lord’s supper.

---

EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : topicEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Modified the format of the bit above the "Enjoy" a little.

Your mathematics is as bad as your biology.Seriously. Why reject evolution? When you get on an airplane, do you go to the cockpit and tell the pilot he doesn't know what he's doing? Where do you get the colossal arrogance to think you have anything intelligent to say about evolution?