Refuting Darwinism, point by point

WorldNetDaily,com ^ | 1-11-03 | Interview of James Perloff

[Dan Day]

Quick question relating to this thread.

Okay, but why ask *me*?

If you pack 1.44MB of information on a 3.5 in floppy disk, can you transfer that information wirelessly to another computer or floppy disk?

Of course.

Science describes something that is real but has no mass as eternal.

No, actually, it doesn't, but thanks for playing.

The uniqueness of individual people is based on their unique eternal information (Spirit).

I think it's grossly misleading to call personality "Spirit", but yeah, I'll agree that it's in essence "software", information-based.

Why, in the face of the evidence, is it so hard to believe we can be transferred "wirelessly" from here to heaven or hell when we die?

Because I've not seen any convincing evidence for either heaven or hell. Similarly, I could ask you:

Why, in the face of the evidence, is it so hard to believe we can be transferred "wirelessly" from here to tape backup in Bill Gates' closet when we die?

(Actually, someday I think that *will* likely be possible...)

When they understand that the eternal information (Spirit) for a life is contained in the embryo, at the point of conception, maybe then they will know why we fight like zealots to protect those children.

I don't get it -- if their eternal essence doesn't perish after all, what's the fuss over when/whether someone dies at all? They're already "backed up". I don't mind deleting a file from my disk if the data is available somewhere else. Why not then say, "abortion is no big deal, the little guys are just sent to Jesus sooner, hallelujah".

Are you sure you've thought through your own argument?

We have been programmed to have a relationship with God, accept Jesus and turn on your wireless transmitter.

Um....

Beware overstrained analogies... Besides being likely erroneous, they sound really goofy.

[balrog666]

Nice post. it would be nice to hope it does some good...

Also, you can add snakes to the egg-laying/live-young side as well as sharks. I'm sure there are other such groups.

I would add that the monotremes show an obvious (and, generally, bypassed) method of nuturing young between the egg-laying and placental-mammal stages as they include both egg laying and an external development pouch. And marsupials then add an internal embryo instead of egg laying. Obviously, evolutionary history has tried several methods and we extant species are the most robust survivors.

[balrog666]

Well slap me silly, I somehow missed a couple of paragraphs.

Oops.

[Condorman]

[Applause]

[Virginia-American]

...even though horses and donkeys are of the same species...

Huh?

If I populate an island with 100 mares and 100 stallions of different breeds, and come back many years later, I would expect to see more than 200 horses. If I do the same thing with 100 male donkeys and 100 mares (or vice versa), I will find no equids after the last mule dies.

Therefore, by any useful definition, horses and donkeys (and zebras, etc) are different species.

[longshadow]

clear-out-of-the-park placemarker

[VadeRetro]

An utter demolition of gore's post. Anyone capable of shame would in his position mumble an apology and slink away. Rest assured, however, Holy Warriors don't do that. You may expect two things from gore:

1) He will brazen away your demolition of his argument with a few blue paragraphs of non sequitur spew, and
2) he will reuse his original argument without modification on thread after thread.

Supplimentary predictions:

3) MichaelMichelangelo will sooner or later again mention how everyone ignores gore's demolitions of evolution, and
4) All of the other creos will politely congratulate gore from time to time for "raising some good points."

[forsnax5]

The scientific objections to evolution ask them to explain, among other things, how random mutations can add complexity, when there's no evidence that they can.

I'm not sure where this came from, but "random mutations" kind of implies "anything can happen." In any case, I don't recall anyone hanging their hat on random mutations as the be-all and end-all of evolutionary mechanisms.

ID is scientific theory which says life shows evidence of having been designed period. Either life shows evidence of design or it doesn't.

But that's not what they talk about. They declare that something couldn't have evolved because it's too complex, so therefore it must have been designed. They don't offer evidence of design, design is their fallback position.

Irreducible complexity doesn't refer to the thought processes of the designer, so I don't know what you're talking about there.

I was talking about the concept of design when it involves structures that have physical functions. A perfect designer would make a design as optimally functional as possible (the hallmark of which would be uncluttered simplicity). Most designs found in nature are adequate, not optimal.

Either life shows evidence of design or it doesn't. The atheist evos say that it leads inevitably to the idea that there is a God (True). They then use that as a basis for immediately dismissing the entire idea. This is not a scientific basis however, it is their atheist philosophy.

You don't think God is outside of science?

[PatrickHenry]

Out for the evening placemarker.

[VadeRetro]

The scientific objections to evolution ask them to explain, among other things, how random mutations can add complexity, when there's no evidence that they can.

Sure there is. New, beneficial genetic information arises according to known scenarios. In fact, evolutionary mechanisms can produce "irreducibly complex" systems. The main mechanism for adding new genes is the duplication mutation.

[Aric2000]

That was BEAUTIFUL!!!

My answer to him was off the cuff, with no research at all, what fun to see my studying has not been in vain!!

Thank you for such a deeply researched and well thought out post.

[Dan Day]

I would add that the monotremes show an obvious (and, generally, bypassed) method of nuturing young between the egg-laying and placental-mammal stages as they include both egg laying and an external development pouch. And marsupials then add an internal embryo instead of egg laying. Obviously, evolutionary history has tried several methods and we extant species are the most robust survivors.

Monotremes (platypus, echidna) are also interesting because they have no teats (ok, "nipples"). After their mammary glands excrete the milk, it pretty much just "sweats" out of the skin. This is yet another interesting "transition" example of something that's partway between how modern mammals do something and how their presumed pre-mammal ancestors did it. So there's no need to ask which developed first, the nipple or the milk, or how one could be useful without the other.

[Aric2000]

Well, looky there, I bet G3K is gonna be speechless, but I suppose not, oh well, here's hoping!!

He is gonna fight both those posts tooth and nail, or if given the opportunity, will hit the abuse button and have the thread removed.

CANNOT have scientifically verifiable info on this board that might actually prove him wrong, and boy has it.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Excellent.

I'm betting that this will be denied or claimed not to prove anything or even that each step was designed.

[bondserv]

Beware overstrained analogies... Besides being likely erroneous, they sound really goofy.<

Thank you for responding. I was just trying to convey some spiritual concepts in layman’s terms. I don't mind sounding a little goofy on occasion if people possibly will think outside of their normal comfort zones.

Presuppositions can limit us so, after all the socialist school system, many of us have been educated by, tends to encourage groupthink. Limit the theories that the children are exposed to which conveniently pooh poohs the pursuit of truth wherever it may turn up.

Provocatively, quantum physics brushes against many metaphysical ideas. Concepts like multiple dimensions. Heaven and hell may not be as wild an idea as prior thought by science. Please consider that these ideas are well within the realm of scientific plausibility.

I don't get it -- if their eternal essence doesn't perish after all, what's the fuss over when/whether someone dies at all? They're already "backed up". I don't mind deleting a file from my disk if the data is available somewhere else. Why not then say, "abortion is no big deal, the little guys are just sent to Jesus sooner, hallelujah".

Would you like someone to force you to die, or would you rather be able to grow and learn.

One of the more foundational concepts of Christian theology is free will. Abortion is a violation of an individual’s opportunity to exercise their God given free will. He created us with the potential to choose to love Him and these children loose the opportunity to make that choice.

[bondserv]

To be precise I should have said that horses and donkeys are of the same genus, not species. If you look at post #295 you will see that the word species is commonly used to refer to the family, which contains the genus and species.

You have concisely made the original point I was trying to make. There are more dead ends from variations in life forms than opportunities.

[diode]

This dispute rages not because of the scientific facts concerning comparitive anatomy, but rather from a fundamental disagreement over the interpretation and greater significance of these facts. The facts themselves are not in dipute. The assumption of the evolutionary biologist, that homology implies common ancestory, most certainly is.
In your treatise, you have made salient points regarding the anatomy and physiology of certain shark species, points that are not in dispute. You can thank the hard work of many scientists over many years for that summary. However, it is a great leap to suggest that isolated similarities between a vast array of disparate animals can be hand selected as if from a buffet, in hopes of reconstructing an orderly transition from one organ system to another, even less one species to another.
So, herein lies the issue: homology need not imply common origin. If it did, one might assume that botanical phloem, complete with specialized cells with seive function and companion cells were more primative versions of fenestrated vascular endothelium supported by pericytes. An absurd notion to be sure, but no less so than the cladistic hierarchy of binary fission to hammerhead yolk-sac placenta to platapus pouch to human placenta to astronaut. Regards.

[Doctor Stochastic]

If you look at post #295 you will see that the word species is commonly used to refer to the family, which contains the genus and species.

This is a new claim. I have never heard the word species used to mean family (in the biological sense) except by you. Perhaps you could give us some citations wherein this usage is common.

[ToTheStars]

Check a listing of the scientific papers published in a year and you'll be absolutely buried by them. Even in evolutionary science alone there are tens of thousands of papers published. Why? Because the scientists are all out there doing various kinds of reality checks and then publishing the results.

Oh, but didn't you know...the poster in question is of the opinion that scientific journals aren't actually read by subscribers. Yes, I think I remember reading such a statement from him not too very long ago.

Excellent post, btw.

[ToTheStars]

Another tidbit of info includes the following reference to Gray's Anatomy, which clearly shows that human embryos have an attendant yolk sac. Just for grins, perhaps Mr. Creationist can explain its presence.

Human Yolk Sac