The evolving Darwin debate

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 24, 2002 | Julie Foster

[Quila]

Why do you insist that God play by your rules? Why would you want to forbid God's allowing for abiogenesis? What part of omnipotent do you not understand?

I think the problem is that the Bible doesn't say it happened that way. Some people take Genesis a little too close to heart, forgetting that it originated with primitive polytheistic desert nomad tribes.

[Quila]

God comes out mangled--dead!

God, or the Bible's version of him?

[RadioAstronomer]

I think the problem is that the Bible doesn't say it happened that way. Some people take Genesis a little too close to heart, forgetting that it originated with primitive polytheistic desert nomad tribes.

Genesis is also incompatible with the scientific dicoveries we have made.

[Jeff Gordon]

Genesis is also incompatible with the scientific dicoveries we have made.

I feel sad when I see people whose belief in God depends upon a 2500 year old work of fiction.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

This thread is trying to stoke itself to life again.

The articles you reference don't explain 0.01% of the genome. THAT is a FACT.

This from the guy who's computer monitor is a clay pot full of acid with metal bars in it.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I leave plenty of organic molecules in rest rooms, if that's what you mean.

Actually, I referring to certain past and present politicians.  So I wouldn't think that this applies to you, unless you happen to fit that category. :)

I've read where certain prominent evolutionists have actually stated that evolution shouldn't be taught in high school because an awful lot gets lost in the translation (I could also say the same of history, but that's another subject entirely).

Just as an aside, I'm not against the theory of evolution per se, I'm just against the evolution nuts.  You know, the ones who have an absolutely fanatical devotion to evolution and refuse to acknowledge that there are holes in the theory.

Call me contrarian in nature, but I'm quite amused by the number of people who go out of their way to vilify the IDers with the same methods that they claim the creationists vilify them.  Sure there are holes in the IDers position also and thus far it has proven impossible to prove creationism empirically.

But creationism doesn't require empiricism as its foundation, whereas ID and evolution do.  Its just that ID brings up some possible answers to questions that are unanswerable under current evolutionary orthodoxy.  To dismiss these out of hand - especially considering the widespread (and continuing) history of fraud and fudged findings in evolution - is not entirely honest.

IDers run the gamut from those who believe that a God or God-like being created the universe to those who believe that the design agent is a set of rules inherent in the very fabric of the universe.  Also many IDers and even Creationists believe in evolution (I read somewhere recently that 40% of micro-biologists do believe in God).

So I admit that I enjoy very much bringing up questions like "evolution of information," "information in context," "universal constants" and the like to those who are evolutionary cultists.  It's amusing to watch them try to dance around the questions without actually answering them.  It is really fun tweaking the noses of the Goulds and Dawkins of this world.

[f.Christian]

Sad...How did that canyon get on mars?

Scientist---the real kind...are coming to the conclusion that oil has nothing to with plant and animal matter.

Common bacteria create the "fossil" residue.

Sad are the ravings of lunatics---evolution---the anti-truth/reality---facts!

God and the Bible will never be sad--wrong!

Evolution will be the laughingstock of ages--eternitiy...you will pay a very dear price for!

[js1138]

It's really not healthy to hold your breath 'till you turn blue. It damages your brain and causes you to forget simple things, like formatting long paragraphs.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I can see why you believe that chance always begins at ground zero. It is the way you think. The questions I have raised regarding the ratchet mechanism of variation and selection have been ignored and sidestepped, but not discussed.

Chance has to have a reference point and we generally refer to this as a starting point.

Ratchet mechanisms do no good outside of context.  While evolutionists can make a case for changes in organisms (IDers can do the same), they have extreme difficulty in explaining how the organism originally came about when such ratchet mechanisms would not have been in place because there was no context to work with.  Even pro-evolutionists have admitted that all experiments to date involving pre-biotic matter have made rather dubious assumptions to begin with.

All arguments that I've seen against Mike Behe's "mousetrap" thus far have done more to reinforce the ID position than militate against it (one argument showcased a spider which used a certain moth's pheromones against it.  The odds of species of two different orders developing the same pheromone independently is rather mind-boggling to say the least).

I'm not saying evolution can't happen, I'm just concerned that evolutionary religionists dismiss, out of hand, those who don't follow the written orthodoxy.

[js1138]

The difference between science and religion is that we discard those things that are wrong

There was a time when the majority of scientists rejected the idea of creation -- specifically the idea that the universe could have been formed at a specific, measurable moment in time.

Perhaps we are getting back to that view with string theory, but for the last 70 years, astrophysists have been following the evidence rather than preconceptions.

[Quila]

God and the Bible will never be sad--wrong!

The Bible is already very wrong in many areas of science. God is a different matter, completely separate from any fictions written.

[Quila]

I'm not saying evolution can't happen, I'm just concerned that evolutionary religionists dismiss, out of hand, those who don't follow the written orthodoxy.

I'm hoping some theory comes along to replace evolution. Not because of an inherent dislike for evolution as can tell from what I've written here, but because that would just be plain exciting to live in a time of such scientific revolution. I was too late to live through Einstein's era, so maybe I can catch the theory that will replace evolution.

I don't give it very good odds though. I think I'll just keep following Quantum theory, better odds of revolution there.

[js1138]

Most of the DNA strand is non-functional

Wrong, absolutely wrong. I already posted proof showing that this evolutionist prediction is absolutely false in post#375.

You posted an interesting assertion that is subject to verification. At this point in the history of biology there are far more interesting speculations than answers.

I will be watching and waiting for more answers. In the meantime, evolution is true or false, regardless of the morality of its proponents.

[js1138]

Ratchet mechanisms do no good outside of context.

Everything is always in context. It is a huge mistake to assume that all the "information" required to produce an organism is encoded like a computer program in DNA. Genes depend on the vast enterprise of life to support and interpret them. All the fossil evidence suggests that this enterprise has been growing in complexity.

[Quix]

IF the flat earth people were able to document a fraction of the solid evidence ID has--and which is being added to fairly frequently--and maybe flat earther's would get a hearing. No need to wait, though. There's not a hint of such quality evidence on the flat earth side of things.

Your cheeky protest merely shows your fierce bias and hints at what must be serious ignorance of the facts on the other side.

I was reading recently, something to the effect that there has not been a computer created sufficiently hefty enough to calculate the odds of a very tiny fraction of a fraction of the components--I think of a human body--the eye or some such. I forget. First time I'd read that. Interesting.

Certainly there's been insufficient time in the existence of the universe for anything more than a the first syllable or even the first letter or two of the genetic code to occur by chance. . . . if my specifics are off, the principle is valid.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Everything is always in context. It is a huge mistake to assume that all the "information" required to produce an organism is encoded like a computer program in DNA. Genes depend on the vast enterprise of life to support and interpret them. All the fossil evidence suggests that this enterprise has been growing in complexity.

No, things are not always in context, else why so much junk in DNA?  I've said before in this thread that DNA is so much more complex than we originally realized.  Even so, the programming analogy which you used (I didn't bring it up, you did) is not without merit.  One big problem with Darwinian evolutionists is that even though they believe that they can explain changes in an individual organism, they have extreme trouble explaining how that organism began in the first place.  Irreducible complexity is a very nasty roadblock.  A flagella without the motors to run it is information without context.  That info is not saved anywhere so when the motors are finally evolved they can use it.  Both are separate and quite disparate processes which must be developed together.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

All that the experiments in micro-biology concerning evolution have shown to date is that the results were because of intelligent design.

[Junior]

All that the experiments in micro-biology concerning evolution have shown to date is that the results were because of intelligent design.

Even the experiments that replicated natural conditions?

[f.Christian]

To: gore3000

What really bothers me about your ideas is that you have taken it upon yourself to limit God's omnipotent capabilities. What part of omnipotent do you not understand?

Our omnipotent God is perfectly capable of saying: "Let this next quantum event create a universe from which will spring forth stars, galaxies, planets and life from elemental particles. I have set the universal constants such that all this will occur without my needing any further intervention." What part of omnipotent do you not understand?

Man is not potent enough to plan his projects such they will work perfectly from the get go. God has no such limitations. He is perfectly capable of creating a universe such that life will evolve from what we see as random events. What part of omnipotent do you not understand?

I find it shocking that you would attempt to limit God's power to that which you, a man of limited power, can conceive. Not only is it shocking, it is an insult to the very nature of God. What part of omnipotent do you not understand?

Why do you insist that God play by your rules? Why would you want to forbid God's allowing for abiogenesis? What part of omnipotent do you not understand?

400 posted on 3/28/02 9:30 PM Hawaii-Aleutian by Jeff Gordon

God does have evolution--PLAN...

"If the Christ of God, in His sorrowful life below, be but a specimen of suffering humanity, or a model of patient calmness under wrong, not one of these things is manifested or secured. He is but one fragment more of a confused and disordered world, where everything has broken loose from its anchorage, and each is dashing against the other in unmanageable chaos, without any prospect of a holy or tranquil issue. He is an example of the complete triumph of evil over goodness, of wrong over right, of Satan over God,-one from whose history we can draw only this terrific conclusion, that God has lost the control of His own world; that sin has become too great a power for God either to regulate or extirpate; that the utmost that God can do is to produce a rare example of suffering holiness, which He allows the world to tread upon without being able effectually to interfere; that righteousness, after ages of buffeting and scorn, must retire from the field in utter helplessness, and permit the unchecked reign of evil. If the cross be the mere exhibition of self-sacrifice and patient meekness, then the hope of the world is gone. We had always thought that there was a... potent purpose---of God at work in connection with the sin- bearing work of the holy Sufferer, which, allowing sin for a season to develop itself, was preparing and evolving a power which would utterly overthrow it, and sweep earth clean of evil, moral and physical. But if the crucified Christ be the mere self-denying man, we have nothing more at work for the overthrow of evil than has again and again been witnessed, when some hero or martyr rose above the level of his age to protest against evils which he could not eradicate, and to bear witness in life and death for truth and righteousness,-in vain."

[Dimensio]

Good point, Darwin proposed natural selection (well, he didn't like the term, but that's what we use). It seems to me that killing off or sterilizing certain people isn't exactly natural

Well arguably it's scientifically "natural" (in that you inject someone with poison, gas them or shoot them in the head, "naturally" they die) but it isn't the intended meaning of the theory.