"law" of evolution?
Out of context: Reply #73
- Started
- Last post
- 90 Responses
- teleos0
Everyone else has brought up religion. I have not.
My decree now and henceforth will remain: follow the evidence where it leads. And it's as simple as this: the reigning paradigm in biology [Darwinism] has failed spectacularly. The Darwinian mechanism has been shown, primarily through repeated experimentation with drosophila and malaria, that natural selection does not produce anything novel in the way of cell, tissue or body plans. Period. It ensures extinction ultimately by killing organisms. It throws out that which it does not need. It has failed as a mechanism for producing anything of significance. Nothing religious about that. Something else that has nothing to do with religion: the evidence points to purposive engineering in biology; functionally integrated machinery, programming code, transport shuttling, redundancy, and even password encryption, in the cell. And that's not even scratching the surface.
blueOne can toss around all the ad hominems and genetic fallacies he wants about Creationism masquerading as science blah blah dee blah, but it's just not going to change the empirical evidence which is what I'm interested in talking about in these threads (which I never start).
- So you are being purposefully disingenuous then. I thought so. total prick. Won't be coming back to any of these threads. Have a nice life ass.TheBlueOne
- nice life ass.TheBlueOne
- haha wow. nice fantasy world you are living in.spifflink
- how am i being disingenuous??? Do tell.teleos
- gahick! Spifflink.teleos
- gahick? i just want to see your portfolio. hopefully your design work makes up for the lack of critical thinking skills.spifflink