On Monday, April 21, 2014 12:37:29 PM UTC-7, ED CONRAD wrote:

<          CRIME IN RHYME                

Evolutionists, their interests so vested        

And Poor Truth, for too long molested.

Their deceit and deception

Near the point of perfection

If it were my call, they'd ALL be arrested

<

<    DISCOVERED BETWEEN COAL VEINS

http://www.edconrad.com/pics/FINGERSx.jpg

<

<         ==============

<

WHAT CHARLES DARWIN REALLY SAID ABOUT THE EYE

 <

  As we all know, there's currently a heated debate

  on Fox News and in the sci news groups about what

  Charles Darwin REALLY said about the evolution

  of the eye.

  <

  It's time this matter is cleared up -- simply and

  concisely -- once and for all.

  <

  (Actually, I thought I had ended all the confusion back

  on Saturday, May 11, 1996, when a pseudo-scientist

  named Michael Clark accused me of misquoting Darwin.

  He had the balls to say I used only a portion of   Charlie's

  direct quotation about the "evolution" of the eye.)

  <

 <          =========================

  <

  Here's what I said Darwin said:

  <

  "To suppose that the eye (with so many parts all

  working together) . . . could have been formed by

  natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd

  in the highest degree."

  <

  <        =========================

  <

http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/uploads/human-eye.jpg

  <

  Here's what Charles Darwin REALLY said:

  <

  "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable

  contrivances for adjusting the focus to different

  distances, for admitting different amounts of light,

  for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration,

  could have been formed by natural selection, SEEMS,

  I FREELY CONFESS, ABSURD IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE.

  When it was first said that the sun stood still and

  the world turned round, the common sense of mankind

  declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox

  populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be

  trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous

  gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one

  complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade

  being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case;

  if further, the eye ever varies and the variations

  be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and

  if such variations should be useful to any animal under

  changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of

  believing that a perfect and complex eye could be

  formed by natural selection, though insuperable by

  our imagination, should not be considered as subversive

  of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive

  to light, hardly concerns us more than how life

  itself originated; but I may remark that, as some

  of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be

  detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does

  not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements

  in their bar code should become aggregated and

  developed into nerves, endowed with this special

  sensibility."

 >        -- Charles Darwin, 1859, "Origin of Species"

 <

<  (EDITOR'S NOTE: WOW! Now THAT was a mouthful!)

<

<             =======================

  <

  I thought I said what Darwin said but David Iain

  Greig said what I said wasn't what Darwin really said

  because he said Darwin said more than what I said

  he said, then Steve Vickers of the UK butts in and

  says HE knows what Darwin really said, claiming

  what I said he said wasn't what Darwin really said,

  so I said, 'Okay, I'll say what they said Charlie

  REALLY said, since I suppose that this is what I

  guess he said, even though I really don't know

  for sure if he said it.

  >

  ==================================

  <

  Nice little song and dance, there, Zippy. Can you

  balance a ball on your nose?    -- Michael Clark

  <

  UP YOUR'S, Bumble Brain!

  <

 <     (Folks, please excuse the interruption!)

  <

  ==============================

  <

  Actually, it really doesn't matter what Darwin

  said or what these fellas said he said -- or what

  they say I said or didn't say -- since what I said,

  whether Charlie said it or not, isn't something

  that really had to be said. Perhaps he said what

  he said because he felt he had to say it -- he

  certainly was entitled to say what he wanted

  to say. But by saying what they say he had said,

  he actually said more than he needed to say, so

  maybe he really didn't have to say what he said.

  Of course, IF Darwin DID SAY what these fellas

  said he had said, critics could later say he had

  nothing to say, even though he had said it.



  Ed Conrad

  http://www.edconrad.com/pics/Dartboard.jpg

  <

  ==================

<

MAN AS OLD AS COAL

http://www.edconrad.com

<

PROOF OF LIFE AFTER DEATH

http://www.edconrad.org

You need medication.