<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for ...that&#039;s a bad hat Harry</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thatsabadhatharry.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thatsabadhatharry.com</link>
	<description>&#34;Quid est Veritas?&#34; ~What is Truth?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:33:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on HUMANISM: Forerunner for Antichrist by sHnaCk</title>
		<link>http://thatsabadhatharry.com/humanism-forerunner-for-antichrist/comment-page-1/#comment-753</link>
		<dc:creator>sHnaCk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:33:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thatsabadhatharry.com/?p=450#comment-753</guid>
		<description>True for all except 2. The rest are satanically inspired to &quot;push you to error&quot;.
Evolutionists claim that the driving force for the progressive upward increase in complexity and intelligence of living organisms is due to natural selection and survival of the fittest, “nature red [bloody] in tooth and claw” as Charles Darwin put it. Is this position correct, logical or even plausible?
 
&lt;strong&gt;Natural selection was first a creationist argument!&lt;/strong&gt; William Edward Blyth (1818-1873) in 1835, 24 years before Charles Darwin, stated that natural selection was only a conservative process that removes defective organisms and keeps species pure and strong. Dr. Thomas Huxley, M.D., and known as “Darwin’s Bulldog” in England, chastised Darwin for not giving Blyth the credit for the concept.
 
Creation believing scientists of the past four hundred years have consistently said that natural selection and survival of the fittest were the methods designed by God to preserve the purity of the created kinds, thus preserving the kinds as closely as possible to the design with which God started. By weeding out the genetically defective, the older and the infirm individuals in a population, those remaining were healthy and strong versus weak and extinct. Wildlife management research done around the world has proven that natural selection and survival of the fittest do not work in nature to produce progressive “upward” evolution, but rather that these mechanisms in nature work to preserve and maintain the purity of the kind.
 
Predators, which are said to be the ones who “weed” out a population, do not take the defective or infirm only; predators are opportunistic hunters and take any individual, including the best and strongest, regardless of their condition. Predators do not go out and make value judgments. Predators (lions) do not look at the individuals in a herd (antelope) and say to themselves, “That one is genetically defective.” Or, “That one is old, so I’ll take that one.” Predators take prey based upon the opportunity to catch it. If the strongest and most intelligent member of a herd makes a mental mistake and gets isolated from the herd, the predators will take that one first. When a Killer Whale swims through a school of fish it is not the survival of the fittest; it is the survival of the most fortunate - the survival of the luckiest.
 
Evolutionists propose that the following formula describes their myth: Mutations Cause Change + Nature Causes Change = Observed Evolution. What is the real formula? Adaptation + Imagination = The Myth of Evolution.
 
Interestingly enough, recent research in the Galapagos Islands, which made Charles Darwin so famous, has shown that small populations often lead to extinction rather than speciation and this has caused evolutionists to demand ever increasing land areas to be set aside in order to prevent extinction from a lack of biodiversity. This would seem to go counter to the prior evolutionary belief that it was isolation in new environments which was the cause of new species.
 
Evolutionists claim that over time things get bigger, better, faster and smarter. The physical record shows, however, that plants and animals in the past were bigger than they are today. Consider the cockroach, dragonfly and Chambered Nautilus. Today, cockroaches grow up to 2 3/4 inches long, but in the fossil record they are often up to 18 inches long. Today, we have dragonflies that are up to six inches across in wingspan, but in the fossil record we find them with wingspans of up to 50 inches across. Today, chambered nautiluses grow to be 10 ½ inches in diameter, but in the fossil record we find them up to eight feet in diameter. So, things aren’t getting bigger, better, faster and smarter. They are getting smaller, worse, slower and dumber.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>True for all except 2. The rest are satanically inspired to &#8220;push you to error&#8221;.<br />
Evolutionists claim that the driving force for the progressive upward increase in complexity and intelligence of living organisms is due to natural selection and survival of the fittest, “nature red [bloody] in tooth and claw” as Charles Darwin put it. Is this position correct, logical or even plausible?</p>
<p><strong>Natural selection was first a creationist argument!</strong> William Edward Blyth (1818-1873) in 1835, 24 years before Charles Darwin, stated that natural selection was only a conservative process that removes defective organisms and keeps species pure and strong. Dr. Thomas Huxley, M.D., and known as “Darwin’s Bulldog” in England, chastised Darwin for not giving Blyth the credit for the concept.</p>
<p>Creation believing scientists of the past four hundred years have consistently said that natural selection and survival of the fittest were the methods designed by God to preserve the purity of the created kinds, thus preserving the kinds as closely as possible to the design with which God started. By weeding out the genetically defective, the older and the infirm individuals in a population, those remaining were healthy and strong versus weak and extinct. Wildlife management research done around the world has proven that natural selection and survival of the fittest do not work in nature to produce progressive “upward” evolution, but rather that these mechanisms in nature work to preserve and maintain the purity of the kind.</p>
<p>Predators, which are said to be the ones who “weed” out a population, do not take the defective or infirm only; predators are opportunistic hunters and take any individual, including the best and strongest, regardless of their condition. Predators do not go out and make value judgments. Predators (lions) do not look at the individuals in a herd (antelope) and say to themselves, “That one is genetically defective.” Or, “That one is old, so I’ll take that one.” Predators take prey based upon the opportunity to catch it. If the strongest and most intelligent member of a herd makes a mental mistake and gets isolated from the herd, the predators will take that one first. When a Killer Whale swims through a school of fish it is not the survival of the fittest; it is the survival of the most fortunate &#8211; the survival of the luckiest.</p>
<p>Evolutionists propose that the following formula describes their myth: Mutations Cause Change + Nature Causes Change = Observed Evolution. What is the real formula? Adaptation + Imagination = The Myth of Evolution.</p>
<p>Interestingly enough, recent research in the Galapagos Islands, which made Charles Darwin so famous, has shown that small populations often lead to extinction rather than speciation and this has caused evolutionists to demand ever increasing land areas to be set aside in order to prevent extinction from a lack of biodiversity. This would seem to go counter to the prior evolutionary belief that it was isolation in new environments which was the cause of new species.</p>
<p>Evolutionists claim that over time things get bigger, better, faster and smarter. The physical record shows, however, that plants and animals in the past were bigger than they are today. Consider the cockroach, dragonfly and Chambered Nautilus. Today, cockroaches grow up to 2 3/4 inches long, but in the fossil record they are often up to 18 inches long. Today, we have dragonflies that are up to six inches across in wingspan, but in the fossil record we find them with wingspans of up to 50 inches across. Today, chambered nautiluses grow to be 10 ½ inches in diameter, but in the fossil record we find them up to eight feet in diameter. So, things aren’t getting bigger, better, faster and smarter. They are getting smaller, worse, slower and dumber.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on HUMANISM: Forerunner for Antichrist by Gary W. Sykes</title>
		<link>http://thatsabadhatharry.com/humanism-forerunner-for-antichrist/comment-page-1/#comment-751</link>
		<dc:creator>Gary W. Sykes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2011 15:04:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thatsabadhatharry.com/?p=450#comment-751</guid>
		<description>As a former evangelical whose intelligence was not arrested in my youth, I like the following quote:  Since the Darwinian discovery of natural selection and adaptation, we know that all religions are human fabrications.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a former evangelical whose intelligence was not arrested in my youth, I like the following quote:  Since the Darwinian discovery of natural selection and adaptation, we know that all religions are human fabrications.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Because of the Angels &#8211; Part 4 by sHnaCk</title>
		<link>http://thatsabadhatharry.com/because-of-the-angels-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-461</link>
		<dc:creator>sHnaCk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:40:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thatsabadhatharry.com/?p=373#comment-461</guid>
		<description>I would obviously agree that our spiritual life is very important. &quot;Things born of the spirit will be eternal and things born of flesh will be temporal&quot;. Fact. However see this http://thatsabadhatharry.com/god-have-mercy/ for a different slant on the same subject!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would obviously agree that our spiritual life is very important. &#8220;Things born of the spirit will be eternal and things born of flesh will be temporal&#8221;. Fact. However see this <a href="http://thatsabadhatharry.com/god-have-mercy/" rel="nofollow">http://thatsabadhatharry.com/god-have-mercy/</a> for a different slant on the same subject!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Because of the Angels &#8211; Part 4 by Erin Turner</title>
		<link>http://thatsabadhatharry.com/because-of-the-angels-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-458</link>
		<dc:creator>Erin Turner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 05:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thatsabadhatharry.com/?p=373#comment-458</guid>
		<description>spiritual life is really more important than our earthly life&quot;~-</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>spiritual life is really more important than our earthly life&#8221;~-</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on In the beginning&#8230; by Atheism... &#124; ...that&#039;s a bad hat Harry</title>
		<link>http://thatsabadhatharry.com/in-the-beginning/comment-page-1/#comment-442</link>
		<dc:creator>Atheism... &#124; ...that&#039;s a bad hat Harry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:57:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thatsabadhatharry.com/?p=513#comment-442</guid>
		<description>[...] In the beginning&#8230; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] In the beginning&#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

