Posted on 01/26/2009 9:13:21 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
“We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: ‘The emperor has no clothes.’”
K. Hsu,
geologist at the Geological Institute at Zurich
Macroevolution states that simple non life evolved into complex higher life- they assign a ‘bottom up’ evolution of information in other words- whether they start in a warm soup, or with created simple organisms, or even with more complex life- they MUST face the serious problem that information doesn’t evolve to the levels NEEDED to sustain life fro m the bottom up
Macroevolution claims that info gets ‘piled up’ (small changes get accumulated until macrochanges occure), however, piling info on top of info, simply throwing a bunch of changed info into a functioning system, can’t, number one, result in macrochange, and number two, can’t account for metainfo. While it might be possible to accidently add some complexity, this simplistic complexity comes nowhere near the incredible complexity of metainfo. Changing info wouldn’t equipt that changed cell with some ‘knowledge’ for how to ‘fit themselves into the overall whole’ so as not to disrupt the whole species, and muck up the whole works- IF you are goign to get change, you are going to HAVE to have a metainfo already inplace to deal with each individual change, direct it, assimilate it into ALL the systems and subsystems for which the change IS goign to affect. The changed cell itself simply does NOT have this absolutely necessary metainfo within it’s makeup to facilitate these iireducibly complex changes, and can NOT coordinate the changes with every other system for which it WILL also change.
The infromation HAS to somehow come fro mthe top down- in other words, from the metainfo down, and IF that info is missing, there simpyl is NO way to gain it via naturalistic means regardless of how many incremental small changes you throw at it- ionfact, the more you throw at it, the more complex the NEED for a governing organizer becoems
Macroevolution didn’t happen- not at any level of supposed beginnings- it couldn’t! Chemically, and biologicaly, nature simply is incapable of stepwise creation of metainfo!
To exclude abiogenesis from evolutionary theory is like eliminating one’s birth from their life story.
I must say CottShop, I am very impressed with how fast you ascend the learning curve!
Considering that biologists writing about life are writing an autobiography, it's not unreasonable to stick to the parts they can remember.
Eight-five percent of the history of life has been erased.
Actually, it's more like excluding their conception. Would you consider any biography that didn't include that information to be incomplete and therefore unreliable?
That is precisely what I have in mind when I call neo-Darwinian evolution a faith-based religion. It has been so right from the beginning.
1.4 Objections of evolutionists:-)
This section examines various objections evolutionists make in defending their theory’s false predictions and added complexities. . .
Ad hominem
Criticism of evolution draws heated responses, and personal attacks are common. Such attacks, however, do not change the fact that evolution has, like geocentrism, generated many false predictions and as a consequence grown more complex.
Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are *partakers* of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Now you guys can theorized all you want, model and divine a scientific methodology to explain flesh man, but it does not change what is. The children *partake* of flesh and blood as did Christ.
Well, let's see where the problem is.
From your perspective, what is wrong with the following statements:
1 Introduction Charles Darwin presented his theory of evolution in 1859. In the century and half since then our knowledge of the life sciences has increased dramatically. We now know orders of magnitude more than Darwin and his peers knew about biology. And we can compare what science has discovered with what Darwin’s theory expects. 1.1 How to compare findings with expectations It is not controversial that a great many predictions made by Darwin’s theory of evolution have been found to be false. There is less consensus, however, on how to interpret these falsifications. In logic, when a hypothesis predicts or entails an observation that is discovered to be false, then the hypothesis is concluded to be false. Not so in science. When a scientific theory makes a prediction that is discovered to be false, then sometimes the theory is simply modified a bit to accommodate the new finding. Broad, umbrella theories, such as evolution, are particularly amenable to adjustments. Evolution states that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin of species. This is a very broad statement capable of generating a wide variety of specific explanations about how evolution is supposed to have actually occurred. In fact evolutionists often disagree about these details. So if one explanation, dealing with a particular aspect of evolution, makes false predictions, there often are alternative explanations available to explain that particular aspect of evolution. Obviously the theory of evolution itself is not harmed simply because one particular sub-hypothesis is shown to be wrong. Failed expectations are not necessarily a problem for a theory. [1] But what if fundamental predictions are consistently falsified? As we shall see this is the case with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Evolutionists are commonly surprised by the scientific evidences from biology. The evidences do not fit the evolutionary expectations. Evolutionists argue strenuously that these surprises are not problems, but rather are signs of scientific progress. With each new finding, evolutionists say, we learn more about how evolution occurred. Is this true or simply a case of partisanship in science? How can we tell? 1.2 Two examples Classical physics was elucidated in the seventeenth century. It explained how objects move and the theory worked well for many years until it was found to fail at very high speeds and in the subatomic world. Objects travelling near the speed of light and tiny particles did not obey the venerable laws of physics, and the new areas of physics known as relativity and quantum mechanics were required. Classical physics still worked well for traditional types of problems, but it was now understood to be a special case of the more general descriptions provided by relativity and quantum mechanics. It seems obvious that classical physics ought not to be dropped. It simply has a limited domain of applicability. In this example, it seems reasonable to say that the new findings are not so much a problem for classical physics so much as a refinement. We learned more about how objects move, regardless of the precise relationship between classical physics and quantum mechanics. [2] Geocentrism dates back to antiquity. The idea that the objects in the sky rotate around the earth seems quite reasonable. After all, the stars can be seen to move across the sky every night. So do the moon and planets, and the sun by day. Was not the earth at the center of the universe? But there are anomalies in these motions. Sometimes the planets move backwards, for instance, and the geocentric model did not always work very well. Its false predictions, however, could be accommodated by adding adjustments. The anomalous motions of heavenly objects were described with dozens of epicycles. This highly complicated version of geocentrism worked very well. The positions of objects in the sky, and even eclipses, could be predicted in advance. Heliocentrism eventually replaced geocentrism not because it was more accurate, but because eventually it could be made to be so much simpler. [3] In this example, it seems obvious that the failures of geocentrism are not merely a case of refining the theory. In this case it seems that the theory is false.How do you justify your second statement in light of the bolded and underlined portion above?
By the way, what’s the latest on “Orce Man”? or was that “horsey man”? I recall that evolutionists were able to construct a whole human from a little bit of skull bone from some animal.
At least God used a bone from another human.
Good point! However, I very much doubt Wiley will be back today...as I’m sure you well know, he’s a hit and run artist who flees the scene of debate at the first sign of trouble.
Again, you are assuming the event occurred, although there is no evidence supporting that. To reason (sic) like you, you cannot prove I wasn't there, without evidence from someone who was there.
Somewhere I have in my collections of this and that I do have the name of the newspaper/article where in the claim was made. And I know you have no evidence other than claims made on googgggle to pronounce it to be a hoax.
I know you were not there because the article does exist.
Last I heard, nobody is quite sure what the so-called Orce Man fragments belong to. Has there been a recent development that has clarified all the confusion?
Because about the only folks who are contesting the theory of evolution nowadays are fundamentalists of one religion or another. They are convinced that the theory is inaccurate based on religious belief, and use faux science in an effort to support that belief. Many, if not most, are also young earthers, while a few are geocentrists, showing how much they pay attention to scientific evidence.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for that one thing about evolution that has been proved true. Cat got your tongue?
How about common descent? Even Behe admits that is accurate. If you disagree, argue with him first.
Thanks, I forgot to mention, that while piling info on top of info, by adding changed info on top of changed info, you might, just might accidently create a simplistic complexity- HOWEVER, Macroevolution DEMANDS that trillions of accidental creations of very complex information ‘must have occured’ ‘sometime i n the past’- It had to have occured trillions of times in millions of species (perhaps even billions) and not only that, but every highly complex change must not have negatively affected previous complexities-
Bottom line is that there HAD to be a syatem of metainfo inpalce EVEN IF we’re to attempt to concider a macroevolutionary process while ignoring al lthe other impossibilites macroevolution faces outside of htis one example of a very serious problem for Macroevolution.
how many impossibilites, high imporbabilities and serious problems does it take to falsify a hypothesis? We’re not talking about just a few inconsequential problems that ‘could be’ logically overcome somehow, We’re talking serious impossibilites at trillions of steps in every single species all down htrough hte ages- This simply can’t be glossed over. Change affects not just the cell it changes, but it also affects many other systems nd subsystems- explanations for Macroevolution however ignore these and try to make it seem as though simple changes could result in complex systems- even IC systems,
NOT my point or purpose to change their minds... they are free to believe and even preach their beliefs. I just point out their religion is now under the force and payment of the law of the land. And that what is this day is result of their practicing of their scientific methodology under the law of the land. They should be happy, they won.
Why don't you elaborate upon this for us unlearned? Why was 85% of history of life erased?
Actually I'm trying to get some work done. I'm putting the final touches on an article to be submitted to a journal and that peer review you folks all hate so much.
Carry on without me for a couple of hours. You're all self-panickers anyway, and I'm sure you can keep yourselves amused.
85% erased? No problem on the “tree of life” if the branches are mostly bare, just crowd the other 15% closer together.
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.