[RecentConvert]

This piece is an attack on Christianity and Western Culture, pure and simple.

[Rachumlakenschlaff]

Greetings to all. I'm new to the Free Republic and this topic (although I have read the last 100 or so posts) so my apologies in advance if this has already been discussed.

Instead of jumping in late on the existing threads, I thought I'd propose (what I think is, for this forum) a new line of discussion: How does the theory of evolution account for the creation of new information? I think everyone can agree that human beings have considerably more information imbedded in them than do amoebas. This is obvious simply based on the relative complexities of the two organisms. The current view from science is that most, if not all, of this information is stored in DNA. The sequencing of genomes in recent years indicates that, indeed, human beings have more genetic material than do amoebas. Some information may very well exist outside of the genome but, regardless of where it may be stored, naturalistic philosophy requires that it be stored somewhere within the material world of the organism.

Regardless of the mechanism, any naturalistic theory of the evolution of less complex organisms into more complex organisms must account for the origin of the information that is in higher life forms. Natural selection, the fundamental driving force in all theories of evolution, does not explain the origin of new information. It simply says that an organism will be more likely to survive than another if it has certain traits that give it a reproductive advantage. i.e., survival of the fittest. Or, as some have pointed out, the survival of those who survive. The point is, the principal of natural selection, which is easily observable in the every day world, does not explain where the traits come from that help the organism survive and reproduce.

Darwin originally proposed the inheritance of acquired traits, but 20th century science rejected that and instead proposed mutations of the genetic code as the origin of new traits. Whether it is the inheritance of acquired traits, micromutations over long periods of time ,or Simpson's Punctuated Equilibrium, the problem is the same: all naturalistic theories of evolution propose that undirected, purposeless forces are responsible for the origin of the information that is in higher life forms but not in lower life forms.

This is a profound concept that, I would suggest, has no parallel in any other theory in any field of study and, in fact, is diametrically opposed to all of our experience with the natural world. In no case has information been observed to spontaneously arise out of the undirected actions of the laws of the natural world. Quite the contrary, our experience with the natural world teaches us that, without the intervention of intelligent agents, or safe-guarding provisions made by intelligent agents, purposeless natural forces acting upon stores of information will cause information to be lost, not gained; ever. Pick you favorite information store: books, video tapes, computer disks, the internet, etc., and find an example to the contrary.

[darbymcgill]

i remember when all the scientists said... the world is flat, the world is flat and everyone believed them.. then all the scientists said the world is round, the world is round and the earth is the center of the universe and everyone believed them.... then they said oil was created by dead dinosaurs, and the dinosaurs were killed by this or that and now it's a comet or meteor or which ever is the "theory of the day".... my question is and always has been to the evolutionists is "what was here before the big bang and how did it get here?"

[BSunday]

Evolution Disproved By Logic:

1. Either Creationism or Evolution is true.

2. No human now living or who has ever lived, was ever born of non human parents.

3. No human now living or who has ever lived, was transformed into a human after being born human.

4. Therefore, man did not evolve and evolution is not true.

5. Therefore, Creationism is true.

An explanatory note: There are two kinds of differences: a difference in kind or type, and a difference in degree. A change from non-human to human is NOT a difference in degree, as some would claim. It is cleary rather a change in type, thus my argument in paragraphs 2 and 3.

[wgeorge2001]

I enjoyed many of his fiction stories in my youth, much like I enjoyed many actors and actresses in fiction video;
but I believe that these same long winded people would be better off if they kept their opinions to themselves. I often wonder how they will feel when they stand before the Creator God and Lord of Hosts Jesus Christ.

[unspun]

Hugs!! Smooches!!!:

It's Alamo-Girl Day!

Today marks the 5th Anniversary of the advent of Alamo-Girl in FreeRepublic.com!

"March 14, 1998 - a day that will live in famy!"

Remember the Alamo-Girl posts over the years and how they have enlightened and enriched our FRee lives!

(And remember the subject of  www.alamo-girl.com !!  "Never again!")

[TaxRelief]

****BUMP****

[johnfl61]

Fools say in their heart there is no God. Asimov was an atheist.

[martianagent]

"The threat of creationism"?

What kind of "scientist" feels "threatened" by rival scientific theories? If a scientist has done his work competently, then no rival theory will "threaten" him. Usually when you hear about something like this, what is at stake is some sort of a sinecure, and the "threat" is that of somebody having to find an honest job.