Posted on 02/02/2013 9:30:30 AM PST by bray
Be careful, however, that the exercise of your Freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 1 Cor 8:9
What if everything about evolution is a lie? This would mean everything built on the theory of evolution is a fraud too. One of the primary gaps evolutionists never want to discuss is where life began? They have two primary theories, it either randomly developed from the primordial soup of came from another universe on an asteroid. Neither of these theories is believable yet the entire theory of evolution is built on them even though the odds are around one in infinity.
There is a huge void in scientific explanation how life and evolution started so most scientists dismiss it as not important or in any need of explanation or proof. They say there was a Big Bang when nothing became something and then exploded into an explosion creating the universe according to all of their infallible models. After billions and billions of years, life magically, oops, scientifically appeared to begin the evolutionary chain. The only explanation the Darwinists have for life beginning is time rather than God. For evolutionists God is to be mocked while billions and billions of years is a serious explanation.
If you ask an evolutionist how life began they will immediately tell you that how life began is not a part of evolution. If you continue to ax the question they will either call you all types of names the worst of which is Christian or explain how only scientists understand how life began. It usually comes down to their ability to intimidate and bully people and even fellow scientists into backing down from the obvious black hole of life’s beginning. They will usually begin their virtual firing squad for anyone daring to question the beginning of life as subhuman and not part of academia’s Holy of Holies.
Their primary explanation is the primordial soup explanation. After the Big Bang and the earth formed with millions of years of volcanoes and flowing lava when the hydrogen and oxygen combined to form water and the cooling began. Randomly the earth just happened to circle the sun at exactly the right orbit and rotation to make the water the perfect temperature for life. Then a few million years ago the chemicals randomly formed amino acids turning into some type of primitive bacteria and billions of years later that bacteria is making laptops.
The problem with this theory is how complex that random event had to be. As scientists become more and more familiar with amino acids and DNA they are finding it is far more complex than they ever knew it was. The genetic codes are still ninety eight percent unexplained as they find more and more unexplainable pieces of the complexity it points less and less to a random act. They were dismissing the unexplained parts as Junk DNA pieces since they have only been able to identify less than 2% of DNA code and invented the term junk for the rest. This should be insulting to their intelligence and certainly to ours. As they get deeper and deeper into the DNA code they are finding that there is no junk in the code and more complexity making the randomness even less possible. Simply Google junk DNA and find out the lies are being exposed by those brave enough to question science. It would take trillions and trillions of years for a DNA helix to form randomly not simply billions. http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm
Their second explanation which is not as universally accepted but basically a fallback theory is the amino acids and life source came from space. This was developed when they realized their primordial soup explanation really didn’t hold water. So they developed the asteroid explanation that a life seed came from a distant solar system billions of light years away and fell to the earth at just the right time and apparently into the ocean after it survived the billion year trip in a vacuum and thousand degree temps during entry into our atmosphere. The obvious questions are where did it come from and is the solar system it came from more or less superior than ours. It is ok to believe there are life forms on other planets but it is not ok to believe there is a God.
Simply because a scientist says over billions of years and billions of chances can make something happen does not make it so. This is only a theory but one that really does not withstand the smell test when you think about it. Fortunately for evolution, scientists generally refuse to question any of their theories and rely on consensus to verify and vilify their earth sized holes in their theories. They have had to fight for this theory so completely and ignore so many craters it has become more of a magic show than science. They use smoke and mirrors to keep people from asking the important questions or demanding an explanation of why those odds are looking more like infinity to one than the truth.
Imagine if scientists spent as much time, energy and money trying to find out if God is real than trying to disprove God. Science has become a religion based on an atheistic belief that we began as nothing and when we die we go back to nothing. It is a religion that places all of its faith in evolution with no explanation of how life arrived but when it came, random chance and mutations has got us to the point man can think, read and write. They have replaced God with billions and billions of years so time is the miracle of our creation. What is the difference between their faith in billions of years and faith in God?
Evolution became the first agenda driven junk science of the modern world. Science is basically following a 19th century idea which if they were true scientists would have been disproved millions of times over but the politics won’t allow it. They need to have people turn from God to force their hope and trust in the gummit. They need the people to believe gummit is their god where all of their hope exists.
If people would put their faith and hope in God they would not need the gummit and most of its controls. If people were saved by Jesus Christ and believed he is where all hope exists there would be a heaven beyond this earth, something the Darwinists can’t offer. If there is a heaven and hell and Jesus saves us sinners from that torture we deserve then we wouldn’t need gummit to regulate our lives as we would simply follow the rules set in the Bible. This is the communists’ greatest fear that people would be free to live their lives as they wish without their absolute control.
Imagine if science were to investigate the marvel of God’s creation and how it so miraculously relates together rather than attempting to use his design as proof there is no God? Science could actually be a positive to most lives rather than its need to be god and repeatedly use its power to control our lives with all of their junk science decrees. You can see all the failures of science everywhere you look so why do we continue to believe evolution with all of its massive gaps? It is time to evolve from evolution.
Pray for America
Well, well I took one more look and guess who’s back. I have been waiting with baited breath for a reponse to how the term fittest is really any different than your wording least inadequate. Not supposing to get any answer to this, but; How do you suppose your geological friends come up with a time-line for Cambrian or pre-Cambrian? After you answer that one then explain how you in in the realm of biology put any age to your microbial artifacts? Lastly, if you cannot see any inconsistencies yet why is it that pre-cambrian equals small while any post-cambrian got big, if not just based on assumptions/presuppositions?
That may very well be; Over in post 97 I brought up the fact that sexuality doesn't logically fit into evolution because of the stated goal of optimization:
Start
| |
|\ v
| \ /\
| \ / \
| \*/ \
| \ /\
| asexual \*/ \ /\
| \ / \
| hermaphtoditic \ / \*/
| \*/ ?
| full-sexual
-------------------------------------
Efficiency ->
The troughs represent the [local] optimizations of efficiency in (reproduction v. effort); the arrow is the 'force' of evolution; as you can see it is directly downward -- to change its direction requires some other external force -- no matter how hard the push downward is there's no incentive to alter reproduction especially when the development of sexualized parts is an detriment to survival/reproduction (represented by the up-slopes). [IOW you cannot ascribe to the process of evolution an anticipatory intelligence.] Constructing more complex procedures/structures which will-be but are-not-currently useful is antithetical to the mechanism of evolution: "survival of the least inadequate" as stated up-thread. Argument ignored.
Yeah, yeah I know I’m hell bent for leather to get you to answer my questions in my order. It lends itself to having you reach conclusions that might just be a tad uncomfortable. But, I don’t think you are above doing something similar if it aids or gives merit to your position. So I do not apologize for doing it.
Ax and it will be given unto you. Now stormer quit dodging like a little girl!
Doesn't sexual reproduction provide a mechanism for sequestering genetic combinations so that an entire species is less likely to be wiped out by virulent pathogen?
Hello again satur-bray. I had just stopped back for a bit and I may just do so again. By the way to anyone interested my post # 243 to myself was to actually re-address stormer, I wanted to assess his integrity while in debate. He has not yet commented on my thoughts about semantics being employed earlier.
Don’t worry - I’ll be back after football...
Not sure about being wiped out by any pathogen,where ever they might have come from. But as far as any asexual life forms it won’t help much in the realms of diversification via mutation. It’s kinda stuck with what it has got.
It may, but there's no way for evolution to 'know' this is the case*; the "driving factor" is random variation via mutation (here).
* If it were to know that was the case then it would not be undirected and/or random. // This is the whole point of the previous argument, more complexity now, with payoff later, is something that cannot be done w/o destroying the essence of the theory that is evolution: random mutation.
How is the determination made that random mutation is the "essence" of the theory? If it is discovered that the mutations are not "random", it would not disprove that speciation is a result of a process of evolution.
It's one of the defining elements... the theory could be revised, yes, but would disprove the theory as-is.
Example:
"The sun makes light & heat" -> it's fire.
-- no air in space discovered, can't be fire.
Observation: the nuclear bomb didn't require air...
"The sun makes light and heat" -> it's nuclear fission.
-- the presence of helium is discovered, confirming the process of fusion can happen (helio = sun -> helium)
"The sun makes light and heat" -> it's fusion.
Current theory.
However, there is *still* the problem of life from non-life.
Then there will still be a revised theory to deal with. If your objective is to disprove speciation by evolution, this is not going to accomplish that.
However, there is *still* the problem of life from non-life.
Only if you conflate abiogenesis and evolution. That problem is manufactured.
>>It’s one of the defining elements... the theory could be revised, yes, but would disprove the theory as-is.
>
>Then there will still be a revised theory to deal with. If your objective is to disprove speciation by evolution, this is not going to accomplish that.
Not quite; the ‘falsification’ attribute of Darwin’s evolution, as he stated it, was the presence of some attribute which could not be explained by (basically) stepwise refinement: sexuality is such an attribute: to be valid a reproduction method has to be working, but in order to be working it has to be fully-formed, so sexual-reproduction is a counterproof. (Specification is a specific sub-component, by disproving random-mutation/natural-selection as the vehicle of change the whole theory crumbles.)
Yes... but the problem is manufactured only by a philosophy that rejects God/gods; i.e. a purely materialistic worldview.
Scientists have found microbes that can reproduce both sexually and asexually.
I don't see the problem because I believe in a God that is capable of creating life with the ability to evolve.
If the problem is only manufactured by a philosophy that rejects God, and you see the problem, that means you must subscribe to that philosophy that manufactures it.
It is simple smart aleck...just show me a picture or an article of a definite line from a pre-Cambrian creature evolving into a Cambrian...hasn’t been done turkey...
Two-way transfer of DNA information is not sexual reproduction. To be truly sexual reproduction there would have to be contribution of each to a new 'instance' the species.
Science is a purely materialistic endeavor.
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.