The Collapse of Darwinism

First a disclaimer. The web site in question is evidently one of Islamic doctrine. The link did not work for me, and the following consists merely of answers to some of the misinformation posted.From Biophysicist: The part about the "exposed frauds" of evolution being retained in textbooks today is hogwash; the film is very careful to avoid mentioning any particular fraud that's still around. They're also very careful NOT to mention that it was other scientists, most all of whom were "evolutionists" themselves, that discovered these frauds and set the record straight.=> (1) My son's high school biology textbook, as of circa 1999, had references to Haeckel's drawings, but in a positive light, though without endorsing them, and leading the poor student to believe in the discredited recapitulation idea.(2) My own H.S. biology textbook in 1967 carried Piltdown man full court, even though it had been discredited decades before. The point about evolutionist frauds is generally that they take so long to expunge, as there is little else to replace them with in support.(3) Evolutionists themselves have generally been the ones who expose frauds because they are the majority of those who work with them, and creationists are never specifically invited to view them by those who control them.(4) The recent Chinese dino-bird fraud, caught pretty quickly, still served to show how eager and gullible an otherwise well-educated crowd can jump at something to fill one of the more glaring discrepancies in the evidence.((From "Andya Primanda": I'd like to sue US creationists for dumping their creationist material to unsuspecting Islamic countries. Especially Turkey. ))==> Interesting you say that, as Charles Darwin named the Turks as one of the races he viewed as inferior to the European.((From "mike the wiz": the documentary shown numerous examples of living fossils. It shown dragonflys next to dragonfly fossils, frogs next to frog fossils (no offense Crash), rats, and I think a few others.))==> What "living fossils" do is to show that the presuppositions based on fossils are flawed. Evolutionists assume it is a record of the history of biology. Then they get surprised when they find the live one.(("mike the wiz": Thanks Andya, I guess normalizing selection would probably explain it somewhat. Yes, you are right, I suppose the species doesn't have to change mophologically.))==> In fact "natural selection" was a creationist idea that preceded Darwin, to explain why species in the wild remained stable in form and type. Throw a hundred dogs into the wild, and they'll revert in a few generations to a more standard dog-kind like those that are already wild.((SR02: "Evolutionists "hold a presuppostion world view"?..))==> More like a pagan religion, like this one from Jeremiah's day: "Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us." (Jer 2:27)((NosyNed: 2)I am not aware of any species at all that has been shown to remain unchanged over anything more than a few million years. The fact that we only have a fossil may mean that what we see is unchanged but that leaves other changes that are not fossilized.))==> This quote shows how much the pronouncements made by evolutionists, presented as science, are indeed "presuppositions".((Biophysicist: creaitonists will insist that evolutionists are always "changing their theories" and fighting amongst themselves. ))==> Is that a denial that they are "changing their stories"?((jar: But there are other examples where the record shows that there has been much change.))==> No more than the discrete living species and kinds alive today. The fossils do show a lot of dead species. As to change between groups to the degree of mice to humans, it is nowhere except in the fertile imaginations of the true believers of darwinistic evolution.((Ediacaran: those are still excellent transitional fossils, now joined by all the feathered dinosaur transitionals being discovered in China.))==> Yep. Chinese dino-birds. I guess you haven't heard.Oh, and they finally found some rocks that they thought could say were pre-Cambrian? As transitionals they are not. They are discrete species. Just the word "transitional" manifests the unfounded assumption of a continuum, which is just not there.((Ediacaran: Darwin's evolutionary tree of life is supported not only by the many transitional fossils, starting with the few he mentioned in his book, but the fossil record as a whole.))==> Sure, to someone who looks at discrete separate forms and plays a little game of morphological connect-the-dots. Nobody needed a "fossil record" for that.((Edicaran: Darwin's ideas are further confirmed by molecular biology and genetic sequencing,))==> Evidence of the strength of illusory world-views, a la "The Power of Myth". Like using the existance throughout morphological similar species (apes and man) of what are labelled damaging mutations. These are a standing witness against the evolutionist ideas of common descent through mutation and selection, as it would have had to work backwards.((..creationists are probably unfamiliar with the concept of peer-reviewed scientific literature, such as Science and Nature.))==> A mechanism that enforces conformity, and one that has been excoriated by such (even atheist) well-recognized scientists as Jose Majeiro. There is at least one peer-reviewed creationist journal, as the creationist perspective is effectively heretical in the view of evolutionist-dominated journals.((The Marx material was a nice propaganda touch..)==> History tells us that Karl Marx wanted to dedicate his book to Darwin, as the alternative views of creation carry ideas that are poisonous to Marxism, such as the Christian view. When Mao Tse Tung consolidated power in China, the first thing they concentrated on in the schools was not Marxism, et.al., but on teaching darwinistic evolution.((Let's hope that the ICR and the "Intelligent Design" creationists don't import that tactic from their Islamic colleagues.))==> This shows historical ignorance, at minimum.((..video may have revealed the whole problem with creationists - apparently their DNA spirals..))==> This quote and its context revealed one of the main problems with anti-creationists. Underestimating its scientists and again showing ignorance of the subject.((From PeriferaliiFocust..I believe in evolution, not darwinism,..))==> (From merriam-webster.com a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors; broadly : biological evolutionism((Steen: Thus "Darwinism" is inherently a dishonest term..))==> The reason I use the term darwinism is that the word "evolution" has been used dishonestly as referring to variation within species, which is a wildly divergent idea from common ancestry of all species.Have a good day! - Alan