Replies

Let's see the evolutionists say again that there is no evidence against their theory.

Short and "too sweet"...
Evolution is Religion—Not Science
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

Rather than focus exclusively on the perceived weakness of Darwinism -- which makes many scientific, falsifiable claims, and which I have addressed pretty extensively here, why don't you tell us what you believe?

Has there been no evolution? Have no nontrivial changes occurred to life since creation? Have there been no extinctions in the past? Is the Earth about 6,000 years old? Were fossils made by the Devil to confuse us? If not, how is their existence compatible with your Creationism?

As you can probably tell, my point is that there is no possible creationist theory which is logically consistent and compatible with the physical evidence, with one exception: God, or the Devil with God's aquiescence, has gone out of his way to fool us into believing evolution. In which case, doesn't God want us to believe in evolution, and so isn't it a sin to be a creationist?

Finally, if you are afraid or unable to answer these questions, then why shouldn't we dismiss you out of hand as a hopelessly confused hack?

bump for creation and to read when I have more time and quiet...

Arguments from astonishment and quotes taken out of context do not a disproof of evolution make. When you have something concrete Mr. Nobel has a prize for you.

Thanks

Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Darwin: brilliant scientist or crass eugenicist? One supposes his theory supports the notion of creating a master race. I gather Hitler thought so anyway.

Thank you so much, gore3000, for pulling together all these links. It must have cost you much time and effort, and I'm grateful for this resource.

No, there's a lot of stuff there, but mostly it goes to prove evolution, not the other way around. The entire fabrication was of course concocted by some misguided fool who obviously doens't know what he's talking about. Evolution says that one species evolves into another? The casual (idiotic) observer may think so, but it's simply not true. Ooh! A picture of a butterfly! Butterflies have wings. They're too pretty to have not come from God. Lookee! A mRNA creating a protein! God's definitely making that happen. As a matter of fact, w/o his love we'd all fall apart this instant. As I understand it, that's actually an argument that has been used before by Christians. God makes the god go 'round.

IF YOU HAVEN'T REALY READ WHAT I JUST SAID: what that heap was all about was a big ol' hunk of SCIENCE. Somebody went through the trouble to go through a couple of textbooks, some websites. He proclaims to the world, I have learned, have tasted, and I find it good... in the eyes of God. Not good for Darwin. Do you realize that this guy is using science to explain something that is completely unscientific? God is not science. The guy's arguments are flawed because they don't make sense. Does he (I doubt that a woman could be so stupid or obsessive) realize that Darwin isn't the leading expert on Evolution today? He says that evolution is defunct in the present scientific community. He's a bloody idiot for saying that.

And what is all that shit about Newton? Where did that come from? A watch or a model are not comparable to life. Genes are just information, and can't do anything themselves? Have you ever touched the stuff? Have you ever engineered it? Have you ever knocked out the stuff from a mouse or yeast cell and replaced it w/ vectors creating from similarily engineered E. coli cells? I've done it, and I don't see god anywhere.

You are being irrational. You mock the idea of evolution, which states that complex systems like DNA came out of billions of years of coincidents, yet agree with the idea that they suddenly popped out of nothing? Excellent logic. Why would God have created DNA and cells and atoms and muons and strings? Why do ppl tend to become more religious in a stressful or dangerous situation? I'm sure that you've of soldiers who claimed that God protected them from a dangerous situation. Why would God care about anybody? He hasn't helped anybody like... almost ever. Why would he look down upon a soldier and say, you'll be safe because my magical hand is shielding you from the eyes of your enemies? God's existence has been proven. They put tape and sensors around the brains of priests in deep prayer, gurus in deep meditation, etc., and found a certain part of the brain that controls this stuff. Frontal lobe, personality. This whatever, religion. That's god right there.

Glad you brought up junk DNA. Why would that be there? They've found some weird shit in the Human genome. Like you said, much of it is useless. Is god not all-powerful? Did he make a crapload of mistakes when he was molding us from clay? Why would ppl have diseases like malaria or asthma or river blindness? It never mentions in the Bible that God got pissed at us and gave us diseases. Explain that.

As I've stated many times before, Evolution is seen every day. Mutations that create viable organisms occur every generation. My parents were mutants. Their parents, your parents, and so on. Show me two ppl who look exactly the same, same prints, same facial heat signiture, iris, and I'll crawl on my hands to kiss you feet. And also viruses and bacteria evolve all the time to counter immunization, medication. Part of this is through the use of vectors, but some of it is incorporated into the DNA. The selfish gene. Ever heard of that? It's a theory and also a book. Read it some time. It'll help you. Save yourself from further waste of time.

I have only one question for the Intelegent Designers.

How much Oil, Gas and Mineral Production do y'all have?

People in the natural resourses business are willing to try anything to find what they are looking for. They have tried dowsing, Ouigee Boards, prayer, dreams and micro paleontology and stratigraphy. Some wildcatter can be found to try anything.

Micropaleontology and Stratigraphy, which are based on evolution are the only succesful methods ever found.

A theory has to make sound predictions to be of any value, or even to just be true.
Why don't yall get together some scratch and use your ID theories to look for Oil?
If you are succesful, you will not only get rich, but you will convert most of the Scientific Community in a matter of months.

Or are y'all "All Talk and no Wallet"?
Or something rather worse? People willing to take steps that could destroy our economy by curtailing new mineral finds, just to feel smarmy about their religion? People no better than the Mullas of the Middle East.

SO9

Index ping.

Nice post!
Bookmarked…

Although he/she/it does not follow links him/her/itself, Gore3000 has thoughtfully provided those of us who do quite a few of them to follow. I have chosen a couple of them and now report my findings. I post them here for all to see.

From the "Caltech and the Human Genome Project" website, the following article: "DNA is a Reality Beyond Metaphor," was written by David Baltimore, one of the winners of The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1975. I report the Nobel Prize information so as to assure everyone that Dr. Baltimore is, indeed a Gore3000-approved expert. Indeed, Gore3000 him/her/itself cites Dr. Baltimore as one of the noble crusaders against evolution in his "Biology Disproving Evolution" section. But if we read Baltimore's "DNA" article, we find this curious statement as the final paragraph:

Modern biology is a science of information. The sequencing of the genome is a landmark of progress in specifying the information, decoding it into its many coded meanings and learning how it goes wrong in disease. While it is a moment worthy of the attention of every human, we should not mistake progress for a solution. There is yet much hard work to be done–even the genome we have today is a first draft that needs elaboration. It will be the work of at least the next half-century to fully comprehend the magnificence of the DNA edifice buil[t] over 4 billion years of evolution and held in the nucleus of each cell of the body of each organism on earth. [Emphasis mine.]

Note: I do not state that Baltimore has "proved" evolution, I merely post his own words, which assume evolution. Perhaps G3K can point out Dr. Baltimore's error for us.

I then clicked on this link, from Gore3000's "Biology Disproving Evolution" section. One of the winners of the 2001 Award was Leland H. Hartwell. I followed links at the Nobel site to this site, where I found Hartwell's own words describing his work:

My laboratory is beginning a new research program aimed at studying how molecular circuits support evolution. Evolution acts through selection of preexisting genetic variation in populations. Three important questions are: 1) How does variation occur? 2)How is variation maintained? 3) How is genetic variation expressed as phenotypic variation? The first question is well studied. We are currently focused on the second. A variety of biochemical mechanisms (including gene redundancy, co-assembly of proteins into macromolecular complexes, positive feedback, robust circuit design, repair processes) minimize the phenotypic consequences of genetic variation and thereby allow cells to tolerate it. These relationships can be revealed by synthetic-phenotypes. That is, if one gene plays a role that buffers the phenotypic expression of variation in another, then loss of the first reveals the phenotypic consequences of variation in the second. Synthetic-lethal relationships have been widely studied in yeast although rarely systematically or comprehensively. Anecdotal results strongly suggest that buffering mechanisms are modular. That is, the cellular circuitry is organized into modules that buffer the expression within their module but do not affect other modules. We are developing methods to be both systematic and comprehensive in the investigation of synthetic phenotypes and are focusing on tolerance of genetic variation in the DNA synthetic apparatus. Since the very mechanisms that permit the maintenance of variation also diminish its phenotypic expression, the third question becomes significant. Phenotypic expression of genetic variation in the DNA synthetic apparatus has additional implications for evolution (and cancer) since this variation can be expressed as mutator phenotypes.[Emphasis mine.]

Hartwell's words appear to mean not only that he assumes that evolution happened, he's active in finding evidence that supports it! He does not claim to have "proved" it, nor do I mean to imply that he has. I mean to show he assumes evolution happened and he's working actively in that field.

Two of the Gore3000-approved experts both assume evolution happened! One is, in his very own words, "beginning a new research program aimed at studying how molecular circuits support evolution." Both are Nobel Prize winners, but Gore3000 him/her/itself sayeth that all Nobel Prizes in Physiology or Medicine have disproved evolution! How can this possibly be?

They will you know. I'm reminded of a time my cousin and I were playing, and he covered his eyes and said to me "you can't see me!" (of course, *he* was kidding...)

Virtual goldmine... bookmarked for later read