- Oct 6, 2008
- Reaction score
- Brooklyn, NY
Hey, I'm agreeing with you. There is only one explanation for life in the Universe.
What is wrong with you?
Why so fearful to truth?
According to Darwin, all living things began with one single cell, and random changes have accumulated to make more and more complex organisms.
There is proof....PROOF.....of the very opposite occurring.
Folks involved in agriculture and the raising of animals for one reason or another have known for eons how to select those with characteristics that they wish, for color or size or any characteristic that happens to differ from the general population.
But there was never…NEVER….a case where the changes followed a path that led to a new species.
Growers knew that there was a limit these tiny alterations, and at some point if selection continued, it always resulted in death.
In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.
“That natural selection can produce changes within a type is disputed by no one, not even the staunchest creationist. But that it can transform one species into another — that, in fact, has never been observed.”
― Robert J. Sawyer, Calculating God
"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.
More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
Marxism requires atheism, and Darwin's theory is the best argument against religion.
That is why the Progressive education industry pushes his theory.
A sarcastic post suggesting that live on earth is due to 'magic' is certainly not agreeing with me.
a. what you should do is admit you never realized that there is no proof of Darwin's theory, and that there is actually proof of the very opposite.
You've been tricked.
b. and you should read physicist Alan P. Lightman's article here:
"…the great question, of course, is why these fundamental parameters happen to lie within the range needed for life. Does the universe care about life? Intelligent design is one answer. Indeed, a fair number of theologians, philosophers, and even some scientists have used fine-tuning and the anthropic principle as evidence of the existence of God.
For example, at the 2011 Christian Scholars’ Conference at Pepperdine University, Francis Collins, a leading geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health, said, “To get our universe, with all of its potential for complexities or any kind of potential for any kind of life-form, everything has to be precisely defined on this knife edge of improbability…. [Y]ou have to see the hands of a creator who set the parameters to be just so because the creator was interested in something a little more complicated than random particles.”