Evolution Is Biologically Impossible

www.irc.org ^ | Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D

[Texaggie79]

discuss.......

[Texaggie79]

mmm mmmm fun.....

[spqrzilla9]

Why discuss this? All these 'criticisms' of evolution are obsolete, having been answered by the evolution community.

Note however, that strictly speaking, "Evolution" itself is not about how reproducing life was first created but about the methods by which genetic characteristics change over time.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

just out of curiosity, are you ignorant, stupid, or insane?

[RonF]

Well, for one thing, the origin of life from simple organic and inorganic precursors into living cells is not expected to have gone from zero to a full eukaryotic cell in one fell swoop. For another thing, the argument about the origin of life, and the science of how new species had and have originated are two different issues. So, trying to condemn the theory and fact of evolution by talking about issues on the origin of life itself is misleading.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

And why'd you have to go and get that other thread pulled by posting the big bud?

[Vladiator]

Why choose? He can have it all!

[stanz]

Evolution Is Biologically Impossible
Institute for Creation Research, PO Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021

This is not an academic institution with the credentials to discuss scientific inquiry.

[Texaggie79]

Me? I just read the title. I don't care much for evolution threads......

[Physicist]

Same old same old. This same analysis can be applied to some pretty basic chemical reactions, with the conclusion that they are unlikely enough not to have occurred (although not as unlikely as the numbers they cook up for DNA). The only way to rescue the argument is to have tiny angels pushing the atoms into place.

[Texaggie79]

You mean like this ?

[staytrue]

Taking a test tube and cooking it for a few years is not the same as having tide pools over all the coasts of the earth over billions of years.

Even if evolution were not true, it is a useful theory because of comparative anatomy. Further I don't think a kind and loving god would place all the evidence of comparative anatomy around the world and give us logical reasoning brains and expect us not to conclude that evolution is a useful and probably correct theory just for the fun of tricking us.

Finally, if the burden of proof rest with the one proposing the theory, then I would like to see someone prove the existence of god or else everyone must become aetheits.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

Egad! If you do the Pot Smokers Lounge thing under the auspices of an Evolution-v-Creationism thread, the moderators will never know. I'll be that not even the moderators pay much attention to these threads.

On the other hand, this is like my third post to this one...

[buffyt]

If there were any truth to the evolution myth, we would have all evolved into the same animal. There would be no dogs, bees, trees, cats, birds, etc. We would have all evolved into the same kind of creature. As it is, God created the earth to sustain life, not the other way around. That is my story [for 51 years now] and I am sticking to it.

[mad_as_he$$]

Mighty big Axe that guy is grinding. I once put some dog urine into a test tube with some cow dung and yeast. Maybe it wasn't living but it had a life of it's own....

[spqrzilla9]

Your post assumes that evolution has a "goal". That is false.

[Texaggie79]

If I were still a pot smoker, and I wanted a lounge thread about it, I would just make a daily thread over in GI titled 4:20.

[tortoise]

Anybody that cites Dembski as a credible source for mathematics (or chemistry for that matter) has pretty much poisoned their own arguments. As has been pointed out before, Dembski has numerous mathematical failings in his writing. I don't even have to disagree with ID to find fault with Dembski -- his mathematics are just plain wrong (and obviously so to a mathematician in the relevant fields) and he discredits his entire argument by it.

[John H K]

Note however, that strictly speaking, "Evolution" itself is not about how reproducing life was first created but about the methods by which genetic characteristics change over time.

This is a consistent problem with Creationists; really, how life BEGAN, and how life EVOLVED, are two completely different debates. But they chose to focus on the how life BEGAN debate, and call it a debate on "Evolution" because they're slightly less obviously full of it and have a slightly better chance of looking good in that debate.

[Bandolier]

Evolution Is Biologically Impossible

Absolute, breathtaking, stupidity.

Which trailerpark was this opinion written in?