Science Special Issue on Darwin: Is Ignorance Evidence?

CEH ^ | February 9, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

Excellent reply! By doing everything in their power to drive the Christian Right out of the GOP, they are actually marginalizing one of the main pillars of the Reagan Coalition. Back in the days of the Reagan Coalition, there was quite a bit of overlap between the Christian, Economic, and the National Security wings of the GOP, and they all more or less learned how to work together to defeat their mutual enemies.

Those were the days!

[dirtboy]

If THAT is the deciding factor, they are NOT conservatives.

Hmmm - what about the inverse - if someone is conservative in most or all of the topics you mentioned, but is opposed to Young Earth creationism, does that make them a liberal, as some posters claim on these threads?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Both are necessary components to the theology of evolutionism.

I like H.F. Osborn's Tetrakinetic Theory. Evolutionary atheology has been employing tweaked variations on it for a century. And Osborn's theory of everything is a tweaked version of Monism (the peculiar philosophy which Darwinians wish to hammer into unsuspecting public-school students.)

Tetrakinetic Theory
The Origin of Life

[chuck_the_tv_out]

“You’ve just asserted that they’re not comparable.”

That’s often the problem with sophistry. It’s why liberals dominate our culture, despite gaping holes in their “arguments” to any reasonable person. They’re not dumb, liberals. They know how to construct an argument which is hard to defeat.

It’s absolutely clear to anyone who’s looking clearly & honestly that the comparison you made is false. You probably see that yourself, really! (I probably could construct a detailed rebuttal, but it would take a darn while & hardly anyone would care, & you would probably just ignore all the good stuff & pick out one sentence that gave you your best shot of winning, because that’s where we’re at here)

toe is a religion, and it shouldn’t be tax funded.

[CottShop]

[[But if the admission is that the theory of evolution relies on God, then I’m satisfied by that. I don’t agree, but I’m certainly satisfied by that.]]

That is essentially the claim by those wishing to avoid the problems with metainformaiton creation and chemicals to life impossibilities- but hte problem with that claim then is that even if God created microbes, or even ‘first life’ in some form, We still have hte problem of mutaitons not being able to create the necessary higher, new, non species pecific information necessary for life- When asked to provide examples of htis creation in species genomes, all we get are obscure examples of microevolutionary change. We are handed bacteria- whose primary designed job is to dispose of waste, told that they devoloped an ability to digest mylon, and we’re told that shows macoroevolutionary change- We’re handed the disorder of sickle cell anaemia, and told that shows life macroevolving- but hte simple fact is that IF Macroevolution were a reality, we woudl be seeing massive myriad examples of Macroevolutionary change in all species that add significant new non species specific informaiton to the genome all the time- Examples would be myriad, and they would not include examples of microevolution that changei nfo that is already prtesent- somethign we know to be a scientific, verifiable fact. apparnetly, Macroevolution must have ceased ‘sometime in the past’ because all we have for evidence of this supposed macroevolution that apparently violated many scientific priciples and laws i nthe past are examples of microevolutionary changes to info already presernt today.

Oh yeah- We’re handed speciation too- another perfect example of genetic loss of informaiton whic again, shows perfectly discontinuity, NOT continuity as demanded by the macroevolution hypothesis.

The main impossible hurdle for macroevolution is metainformaiton- there is no process in nature that can provide the needed metainformaiton that species absolutely must have before any lower information can be utilized in the whole pseices- mistakes to hte genome can NOT provide this essential higher informaiton no matter what step you start at. Macroeovlutionsits claim that macroevolution happens when microevolutionary mistakes ‘accumulate’ however, again piling mistake upon mistake will never create the master metainformaiton needed for species survival and fitness. EVERY change, no matter how big or small requires a predesigned system of metainformaiton controlling, directing, utilizing the changes that affect not just the cell the change happened to, but every system and subsystem the cell is connected to.

We know species have species specific paramters- these parameters prevent corruption beyond a certain point precisely because hte species speicific metainformaiton is custom taylored to that species, and we know conclusively from experiments, that species can NOT be pushed beyond these species specific parameters because hteir metainformaiton is not equipted ot handle the type significant changes that macroevolution demands- no matter how much time you throw at the situation.

so again, Constantly being handed example of trait changes, that fall aquarely within microevolutionaries boundaries, are poor examples to be throwing out there in defense of macroevolution.

[tpanther]

Hmmm - what about the inverse - if someone is conservative in most or all of the topics you mentioned, but is opposed to Young Earth creationism, does that make them a liberal, as some posters claim on these threads?

I see a few references to this from time to time, but my experience is I've seen such idicy as "separation of church and state" bleed through their thinking or some other liberal hooey to give them away as liberals.

Liberals simply can't help themselves.