Posted on 05/05/2012 8:46:18 AM PDT by cleghornboy
“Darwinian evolution has been thoroughly refuted and has nothing to do with science.”
Hogwash, balderdash and poppycock. I’ll bet the Taliban think the same way.
So do you think you are the sum of numerous genetic accidents that started in the primordal ooze?
Free Republic promotes racist slave owners George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. /s
Please prove that evolution is true. Don’t give the consensus argument, give us facts that evolution does or has existed.
He was not more racist than other people in his era.
If you don't like these "freethinkers" find a better argument or issue or grievance -- or maybe just agree to disagree, live and let live.
How about providing scientific proof that Man magically appeared about 6000 years ago. How about providing scientific proof that God, not man, wrote the Bible.
look at the crime stats if you dare.
Luther Sunderland asked evolutionists what evidence they had for their theory. The British Museum of Natural History has the largest fossil collection in the world. When the senior paleontologist, Colin Paterson, was asked why he did not show the missing links in his book he said: “I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil.” (Dr. Colin Paterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History in correspondence to Luther Sunderland quoted in Darwin’s Enigma 1988, p. 89).
Darwinism is not science. It cannot offer us any empirical data to support its theory. Which is why Gilbert Chesterton once quipped, “The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is still missing.”
Ah geez. Now remember this is an open forum so it's not right to go all technical and esoteric on us. Try to put things in language that the average layman can understand.
The best argument against these nuts is to ask why they support the welfare society, and thereby reversing evolution by supporting those who can’t survive on their own.
Mario Seiglie, in an article entitled “DNA: The Tiny Code That’s Toppling Evolution,” writes:
“Up to now, Darwinian evolutionists could try to counter their detractors with some possible explanations for the complexity of life. But now they have to face the information dilemma: How can meaningful, precise information be created by accident —by mutation and natural selection? None of these contain the mechanism of intelligence, a requirement for creating complex information such as that found in the genetic code.
Darwinian evolution is still taught in most schools as though it were fact. But it is increasingly being found wanting by a growing number of scientists. “As recently as twenty-five years ago,” says former atheist Patrick Glynn, “a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue would likely have come down on the side of skepticism [regarding a Creator]. That is no longer the case.” He adds: “Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis. It is the simplest and most obvious solution . . .” ( God: The Evidence , 1997, pp. 54-55, 53).
Quality of genetic information the same
Evolution tells us that through chance mutations and natural selection, living things evolve. Yet to evolve means to gradually change certain aspects of some living thing until it becomes another type of creature, and this can only be done by changing the genetic information.
So what do we find about the genetic code? The same basic quality of information exists in a humble bacteria or a plant as in a person. A bacterium has a shorter genetic code, but qualitatively it gives instructions as precisely and exquisitely as that of a human being. We find the same prerequisites of a language—alphabet, grammar and semantics—in simple bacteria and algae as in man.
Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of “artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction . . . [and a] capacity not equalled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours” (Denton, p. 329).
So how could the genetic information of bacteria gradually evolve into information for another type of being, when only one or a few minor mistakes in the millions of letters in that bacterium’s DNA can kill it?
Again, evolutionists are uncharacteristically silent on the subject. They don’t even have a working hypothesis about it. Lee Strobel writes: “The six feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body’s one hundred trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made . . . No hypothesis has come close to explaining how information got into biological matter by naturalistic means” (Strobel, p. 282).”
http://www.ucg.org/science/
dna-tiny-code-thats-toppling-evolution/
Perfectly executed technology cannot be distinguished from magic by the ignorant.
Totally random natural selection favors mutations that increase the survivability of the better adapted mutant, and is usually not understood due to ignorance of time and pathway to the end result.
Whether you think God, man, or the environment selects the mutant, it is not racist, biased, or unfair.
It simply is.
So why do mutations improve a species rather than hinder them? Where are those transitionary animals or fossils.
Pray for America
“Up to now, Darwinian evolutionists could try to counter their detractors with some possible explanations for the complexity of life. But now they have to face the information dilemma: How can meaningful, precise information be created by accident —by mutation and natural selection? None of these contain the mechanism of intelligence, a requirement for creating complex information such as that found in the genetic code.
Darwinian evolution is still taught in most schools as though it were fact. But it is increasingly being found wanting by a growing number of scientists. “As recently as twenty-five years ago,” says former atheist Patrick Glynn, “a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue would likely have come down on the side of skepticism [regarding a Creator]. That is no longer the case.” He adds: “Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis. It is the simplest and most obvious solution . . .” ( God: The Evidence , 1997, pp. 54-55, 53).
Quality of genetic information the same
Evolution tells us that through chance mutations and natural selection, living things evolve. Yet to evolve means to gradually change certain aspects of some living thing until it becomes another type of creature, and this can only be done by changing the genetic information.
So what do we find about the genetic code? The same basic quality of information exists in a humble bacteria or a plant as in a person. A bacterium has a shorter genetic code, but qualitatively it gives instructions as precisely and exquisitely as that of a human being. We find the same prerequisites of a language—alphabet, grammar and semantics—in simple bacteria and algae as in man.
Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of “artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction . . . [and a] capacity not equalled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours” (Denton, p. 329).
So how could the genetic information of bacteria gradually evolve into information for another type of being, when only one or a few minor mistakes in the millions of letters in that bacterium’s DNA can kill it?
Again, evolutionists are uncharacteristically silent on the subject. They don’t even have a working hypothesis about it. Lee Strobel writes: “The six feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body’s one hundred trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made . . . No hypothesis has come close to explaining how information got into biological matter by naturalistic means” (Strobel, p. 282).”
http://www.ucg.org/science/
dna-tiny-code-thats-toppling-evolution/
“Researchers suggest that virtually all modern men – 99% of them, says one scientist – are closely related genetically and share genes with one male ancestor, subbed ‘Y-chromosome Adam’. We are finding that humans have very, very shallow genetic roots which go back very recently to one ancestor…That indicates that there was an origin in a specific location on the globe, and then it spread out from there.” (US News and World Report, December 4, 1995).
That is a false argument.
Of course, not all mutations improve. A few do...most don’t.
The absence of transitory relatives proves nothing but absence. Where is the evidence of your great, great, great, great, great, (etc.) grandfather?
Random natural selection over several million years, interrupted by weather, volcanoes, meteorites, sun action, viruses, bacteria, predators, and God knows what, cannot be laid out in linear form that would satisfy the cynic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.