How Much Longer Can Darwinism Be Sold? Part 4

From Sea to Shining Sea ^ | 1/12/09 | Purple Mountains

[PurpleMountains]

This is the fourth post in a series of articles on the evils and errors of Darwinism. So far, we have postulated that Darwinism, - the tenets of which furnish the philosophical foundation for atheism and materialism (I do know they both preceded Darwin), and for the actions of Stalin and Hitler in exterminating millions, - is correct about some things and wrong about others.

That which Darwin got wrong, however, is crucial. We have seen how the DNA code structure argues conclusively for the tenet that we are all related in some way; but that same DNA code also argues conclusively that there had to be a designer to produce such a perfect code millions and maybe billions of years ago – a code that remains unchanged in every living thing to this day.

[DevNet]

“but that same DNA code also argues conclusively that there had to be a designer to produce such a perfect code millions and maybe billions of years ago”

Interesting that he don’t think the Earth is only 10k/6k years old.

[Dog Gone]

It’s called “evolution”, not Darwinism. And when one brings up Hitler in the same breath, it’s already been determined that the discussion won’t be intellectual.

[muawiyah]

Not necessarily so.

Hitler had a mistaken idea that he could create a master race in a couple of generations, and he had no idea how evolution worked, but he tried ~ and there's the rub.

Gazillions of books have been written about that particular belief and its effect on its victims.

We even discuss "Social Darwinism", which I am sure you know about ~ that's where after I've kicked your tail regarding some strange Darwinian shibbolith (all chickens are the same) I slice you up and serve you for dinner!

Which may or may not prove that "evolution" always results in improvement ~ sometimes it doesn't.

On the other hand, there's recently been a focus in the literature on how genes are structured, and how the DNA strands where they are found are arranged within chromosomes.

Each little "restructuring" the researchers find carries with it the implication that the information carrying capacity of organized DNA strands is absolutely incredible ~ far and away more than had been imagined just a decade back.

Frankly, all the previous discussions of Darwinianism, evolution, creation, et al, etc. really seem to have little or no bearing on the structure that we can now observe.

In fact, even if we're talking "creation" the creator definitely had to work through an exceedingly large number of iterations of a working universe to come up with the various ways that structure appears to be imbedded in the very make-up of reality. It's not just enough that a code is in use, and it's pretty good at doing it' thing ~ it's obviously the case that the code rises up out of the universe itself, anytime, anyplace, under any conditions. (Admittedly sometimes it gets "snuffed", but it's there).

We are getting close to the time where we will be able to elicit it (life) at will, and through the passage of time we will forget whether we were created, or we created ourselves, or was there some other way this business all came about.

I suspect we'll simply imagine ourselves to have been our own creators.

[muawiyah]

Earth is certainly older than anybody thinks it is.

Have you caught the pictures of all those solar systems with the gas giants in near the central stars? Looks like our own except the gas is still there.

Now, imagine Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars as the rocky cores of gas giants.

Kind of makes you wonder what did that eh! And, will it happen again any time soon.

[Carl from Marietta]

The preposterous logic clung to by Darwinists to assuage their choice to deny God, reminds one of the newly minted religion of anthropogenic global warming.

Stupid bastards all.

[Coyoteman]

Nonsense placemarker.

[ffusco]

Hitler and Stalin didn’t need Darwinism to commit genocide, their hatred made that possible. Darwinism simply gave them a scientific justification to do so.

Likewise Darwinism does not remove the God from the eqaution anymore than the “theory of Relativity”

[kindred]

[That which Darwin got wrong, however, is crucial. We have seen how the DNA code structure argues conclusively for the tenet that we are all related in some way; but that same DNA code also argues conclusively that there had to be a designer to produce such a perfect code millions and maybe billions of years ago – a code that remains unchanged in every living thing to this day.]

We are all related in some way, I believe God created all mankind and all beasts on the earth and therefore the explanation of relation is that one creator created all thing that consist. Darwinism is a futile attempt to explain away creation by the foolish theory of evolution which is impossible, unless your a educated fool who can not think for yourself and depend solely on godless athiests for errant facts. As the Lord has stated in Scripture through His apostle Paul; “ disregard the opposition of science falsely so called”.
And so it is and the evolutionist will not know the truth until He kneels in front of Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour and Creator of Mankind.

[DevNet]

How do “Darwinists” attempt to deny God?

[MississippiMan]

Simple answer to the article’s central question: Darwinism will continue to be salable as long as the left maintains its iron grip on the infostructure. That’s also the length of time that liberalism will continue to advance in general. Liberals control the info-flow to the masses from near-cradle to grave, beginning in kindergarten and ending when someone watches their last network/CNN newscast.

Macroevolution is so absurd on its face that it would have never had a chance to take hold as a viable theory without a liberal, godless, God-hating infostructure pushing it the whole way. And yes, plenty of conservatives fall willingly into the trap set for them when they swallow the nonsense hook, line, sinker.

Evolution dogmatics need not reply. I’ve heard all your insults before, and you can’t possibly imagine how unimportant your opinion of me is.

MM

[Coyoteman]

From the second paragraph of this article:

The fossil record, however, and the absence of transitional forms (only a pitiful few have been discovered among the millions of fossils found, and those found are questionable) shows that there is no such thing as a single “tree of life”, but rather many trees and telephone poles.

This is a creationist misrepresentation without any factual basis (i.e., a lie).

Here is some information on one particular transitional which happens to be in our own ancestry. There are many other examples I could have posted (horses are a good one too), but I am partial to fossil man as I spent a number of years in graduate school studying that field.

The chart which follows shows the position of this specimen (look in the exact center).

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

[DevNet]

What stops Micro from progressing into Macro?

[allmendream]

Well there is usually a “price” with something that is sold.

The “price” that the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation sells for is right. It costs nothing to learn it, and once one understands it, vistas of information suddenly make sense and one can utilize it to explain and predict data.

Scientists use the theory because it works and is useful

Meanwhile Creationism is of no scientific use to anybody, and nobody hires its proponents to use it to predict and explain the natural world; for example petroleum corporations do not hire “creation geologists” neither do biotechnology companies hire “creation biologists”. They are certainly free to in this capitalistic society; and yet none do so, because Creationism is of absolutely no use in explaining and predicting data.

[Coyoteman]

Again from the article:

Darwin’s next point, however, is a leap of faith that is also crucial, and has been completely disproved by Behe and others – that these random mutations can accumulate to the point where new body structures and even new life forms can be assembled – a process that is called ‘macroevolution’.

This is another misrepresentation (i.e., lie).

Behe is the one who has been disproved. Often and thoroughly.

Regarding the second point that micro-evolution is tolerated by creationists but that macro-evolution just couldn't occur--I have a question.

I have posed this question on several websites and no creationist has ever replied with a reasonable answer. But, we'll try once more:

What mechanism prevents lots of little micro-evolutionary events from adding up, over a large span of time, to become a macroevolutionary event? Please specify the biological mechanism that is responsible for this, as scientists have yet to find such a mechanism. Nor have creationists yet to propose a mechanism that has withstood the slightest of scrutiny.

Since you posted the article, you own its faults as well as its virtues. So it is up to you to specify for us that mechanism.

In the meantime here is a chart which perhaps provides a better picture of how evolution occurs through time. Note the progression through several species, and then a quicker jump to new genera. These, by the way, are all examples of macro-evolution--which creationists say can't happen. (These cute little guys are North American primates that unfortunately became extinct.)

[Moonman62]

The preposterous logic clung to by Darwinists to assuage their choice to deny God

Of course, if evolution is part of God's creation, and it appears to be, then it isn't the evolutionists who are denying God.

[RegulatorCountry]

Oooh ... skull porn. Reminds me of the good old days on FR. How soon ‘til you break out the old caliper photos? Those are a hoot, too.

[Raycpa]

1 Corinthians 2:14

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:
16”For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?”[d] But we have the mind of Christ.

[Coyoteman]

Oooh ... skull porn. Reminds me of the good old days on FR. How soon ‘til you break out the old caliper photos? Those are a hoot, too.

Do you have any scientific evidence that what I have posted is incorrect?

If so, please post it and perhaps we can have a good discussion. I have a number of years of graduate training in fossil man and evolution and perhaps I could help you with some of the details.

For the real details of biology and DNA though you need to talk with the other guys.

[NavVet]

If there were any truth to the theory of natural selection, there would be fewer liberals every year.