Evolution Is Biologically Impossible

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

[Raymond Hendrix]

Okay, what is the biblical meaning of the word 'kind' then when it refers to animals? Was a dog and a wolf the same 'kind' when the Bible was written? Please tell us.

[Physicist]

Eyes also "devolve" when they are not used.

Exactly what evolution would predict.

Your story is speculation. I can just as easily tell a story about how the eye existed fully formed by God and then it devolved and deterioriated over time when it wasn't used

...the Dark Ages, presumably...

or was not useful for survival. Both of our stories are still stories.

OK, tell me one. Tell me the creationist version of why eyes devolve towards uselessness when they are not used. No invoking evolution, now. Give it your best shot.

[Raymond Hendrix]

You should read my book. It is absurd to say that there is no God. Simple logic is all that is required to come to that conclusion.

Unfortunately I only have the rough draft online but I think you can get the point anyway.

The Blind Atheist

[Raymond Hendrix]

I am not really into story telling. I leave that for the Darwinists. I gave you an example of a story I could tell just as easily as you told one. The point is, stories are not the same as reality. And as I stated before, I do not refute evolution. I only take exception to the claims that are supported by story telling.

[PatrickHenry]

It is absurd to say that there is no God. Simple logic is all that is required to come to that conclusion.

I'm a fairly good logician. I eagerly await your simple logic on this point.

[BMCDA]

OK, tell me one. Tell me the creationist version of why eyes devolve towards uselessness when they are not used. No invoking evolution, now. Give it your best shot.

It's the fall you dummy, it's always the fall ;-D

[Raymond Hendrix]

One would need to have all knowledge to claim that there is no God. Of course it is foolish for anyone to claim to know what is in every corner of the universe and the unknown whatever beyond and in unknown dimensions. I guess that is why the Bible say that "the fool has said in his heart that there is no God." You will have to read the book for the rest of the answer as it relates to abiogenesis and the origin of information based life. There is no reason to go over it all here. I linked to it already. But if you have a specific question I will try and answer it here.

[XDemocrat]

A good reply to these types is, who wrote the bible?

[The Mike Device]

OK, tell me one. Tell me the creationist version of why eyes devolve towards uselessness when they are not used. No invoking evolution, now. Give it your best shot.
Nice Jab! Now finish him off with that big left hook of logic.

[RAWGUY]

Thanks buffyt,

I do agree whole heartedly.

I qoute:

To Give
Is the reason I live

To give all I can give in return
for the life that I earn

I was born, as a part of a plan
with the heart of a man

with the will to survive
and I believe

everything on this earth
having meaning and worth
made of concrete and earth

is to share

and to feel

justified I exist
to be scribed on the list

of someone
with a place in the Sun

Here I stand, reaching up to the sky
to the day that I die

I must give all I can

When I go, I'll go out empty hand
leaving dust to the land

Just this Soul I have found
Leaves the ground

Author unkown

Adopted by RAWGUY at age 14 as a measure to live by.

[PatrickHenry]

One would need to have all knowledge to claim that there is no God.

You're dodging again. Let's back up a moment. Earlier, you claimed:

Parts of the theory of evolution may or may not be true but the idea that life came into being without intelligent intervention is absurd.
161 posted on 6/24/02 8:53 PM Eastern by Raymond Hendrix

When I made a simple inquiry in post 163: "And your "intervenor" came from where?" you ducked and dodged and asked a bunch of unanswerable questions. When I pressed you, you said:

Perhaps there are things that we will never have the answer for. The absurdity is in claiming that we know that which can never be known. I don't know the answer to foolish questions and neither do you. That is why I think it is absurd to ask them when it is impossible to find the answer. The 'dodge' is in asking them to begin with.
177 posted on 6/24/02 9:29 PM Eastern by Raymond Hendrix

So we dropped that one. Now you make a new claim:

It is absurd to say that there is no God. Simple logic is all that is required to come to that conclusion.
184 posted on 6/24/02 9:49 PM Eastern by Raymond Hendrix

So in post 187 I said: "I'm a fairly good logician. I eagerly await your simple logic on this point." And what's your response?

One would need to have all knowledge to claim that there is no God.
189 posted on 6/24/02 10:13 PM Eastern by Raymond Hendrix

That was a wonderfully un-responsive reply. You made the claim, you said that "simple logic" could demonstrate it, so I asked for the demonstration. Now you dodge and weave and tapdance all over the place. You do this a lot, don't you? There's a simple solution to the problem you're having. Just don't make claims you can't back up.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The collected works of Borel are available. Why didn't Dembski give a reference?

[Physicist]

Unfortunately, he declined to answer the bell.

[RonF]

"Why is this? Wouldn't we exterminate any rivals? On the other hand, squids are very smart invertbrates, but they have trouble mastering fire.."

In fact, there is currently a school of thought that believes that Neanderthals and modern man co-existed about 40,000 years ago, and we wiped them out.

[general_re]

AgBr

Not too many living organisms that you'll find that one in, though. If that's what I wanted, I'd have picked a selenium compound ;)

I cain't see enough of the second to figure it out.

It's as simple as it looks - C, H, and one lonely O. Hit it with a photon or two, a presto-change-o series of conformational changes, and you get this:

And all-trans-retinal is formed from the first one, which is 11-cis-retinal. A very simple molecule, really, but without it, you wouldn't see so well ;)

Now, for more fun, examine the chlorophyll molecule again. Compare the structure of these molecules and discuss:

Parsimony? Convergence? Coincidence? The Hand of God?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Even simpler light sensitive molecule H2O2.

[RightFighter]

clotting: Organisms without the ability to clot blood die, period, so no non-clotters will survive..

On the other hand: creationists "believe" a divine entity "might have" created everything from nothing, so creationism "could have" been the answer.

First, that doesn't even BEGIN to describe HOW clotting came about. That's like saying "Well, paint lasts longer on canvas, so the Mona Lisa was the result." If no "non-clotters will survive" then how did anything EVER survive? Did the first organism have blood? Did its blood clot? If not, how did it survive? If the first organism didn't have blood, then why would blood have "evolved" if the host organism's lack of clotting ability would have killed said organism?

In answer to your last statement, we Creationists don't believe anything "might have" or "could have" happened. We believe in something that DID happen.