Darwin's Influence

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

Tell me. Can you find Ursa Major in the night sky? Must be that God put a big bear in the sky.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob:

Tell me. Can you find Ursa Major in the night sky? Must be that God put a big bear in the sky.

Ha, ha ha. Evolutionists always attack with nonsense. Perhaps it's because their own theories are made of the same nonsense.

[littlechild]

Rob:

Tell me. Can you find Ursa Major in the night sky? Must be that God put a big bear in the sky.

Can you find the common ancestors of all life forms? Can you find convincing, undisputed, proof of any single one?

Q. Can you show us THE Darwinian Tree of Life, with a consensus of scientists agreeing that that single tree is THE one, the true, the official one?

A. No, because there isn't one. You got a zillion of 'em.

From this site

Ideally, phylogenetic trees should be approximately the same regardless of which molecules are chosen for comparison. Indeed, there has been a general expectation among evolutionary biologists, that the more molecules they include in a phylogenetic analysis, the more reliable their results are likely to be.

But the expectation that more data would help matters "began to crumble a decade ago," wrote University of California molecular biologists, James Lake, Ravi Jain, and Maria Rivera in 1999, "when scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationships to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone." According to French biologists Herve Philippe and Patrick Forterre: "With more and more sequences available, it turned out that most protein phylogenies contradict each other as well as the rRNA tree."

[littlechild]

ID theory shows that complex life only comes from complex life- exactly what we see in nature. Evolutionists state that ID is not science. Therefore, what we see and document in nature isn't science! Evolutionists must be somewhat embarrased by their faulty reasoning.

I'm pretty pleased with the results of this informal poll, it seems that at least 42 percent of those polled agreed that alternatives to Darwinist philosophy should be presented in the classroom. I think this can only be of benefit to a healthy, vigorous, thinking nation. One which can ARTICULATE their positions in the face of opposition, and not just be spoonfed by a monopolistic education system.