Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Evolutionists probably don’t like to think too deeply about how the Bombardier beetle could have evolved - better to ignore the difficulties and simply assume it did … somehow. After all, the mortar of assumptions is what keeps the castle of evolution science from collapsing into a pile of rubble.
 
So if someone purports to draw a conclusion (say, about the existence of God) from a theory - which conclusion is in fact no part of the theory, nor a logical necessity of the theory - then the theory is to be condemned. Makes sense.
Regardless of its potential philosophical implications, I reject the theory of evolution on the basis that it is insult to true science. When science exceeds its bounds - by replying on countless assumptions instead of facts, for example - it becomes farcical nonsense … not to mention, completely useless.
What we are seeing on this thread is fear of science, masquerading as hatred and derision.
This is a very common accusation levelled at creationists (evo-deniers) on every atheist site on the planet. It’s baselsss and silly.
 
Jesus often challenged their ideas of Scripture, astonished the students of the Law.
Fair point, but in the time of Jesus, there was no need to be aware of the possibility of a separate, pre-Adamic creation. Jesus was only interested in teaching what was necessary, I would imagine.
But why would you say that interpretation was unknown? It is not like this wasn’t common in the Patristics.
I’m not aware of any Church Fathers who believed in a pre-Adamic creation. However, this doesn’t mean to say they’re weren’t any.
 
Last edited:
Regardless of its potential philosophical implications, I reject the theory of evolution on the basis that it is insult to true science.
Good for you. When you publish some serious work on the subject, this opinion may count for something.
 
Last edited:
Once again the creationism ‘analogy’ fails to include natural selection. Your analogy is useless because evolution includes natural selection and your bricks do not.
I was referring to abiogenesis - no natural selection involved … just pure, dumb luck and the magic wand of billions of years.
 
“Horrendously Different” doesn’t sound like good Common Ancestry propaganda. Best to stick with the “we share 98.9% of our DNA” line.
 
… Or the Scripture is correct and there is a definite error in the theory of evolution.
 
From what i can gather, the intllectual world is dominated by the spirit of atheism. Any theist is regarded with deep suspicion and distrust. An “evolved” human being is an atheist - one who has grown out of the childishness of believing in God and creation.
 
Souls I don’t know much about, but fossils I know quite a bit about.
I could spend years reading about the fossil record, but all I would be doing is reading what someone else tells me is there. Chances are, that “someone else” is an atheist who belives with all his heart and mind that evolution is a fact, so what he tells me may be evolution-correct, but not necessarily objective and truthful.
 
Good for you. When you publish some serious work on the subject, this opinion may count for something.
The cult of evolution that is the scientific community ensures that any anti-evolution papers are rejected. That’s how brainwashing works - you only get to here one side of the story. The devil doesn’t like anyone interferring in his plans of deception.
 
Last edited:
The DNA and epigenetic programming is vastly different whic we would expect to see in design.
So, what is it about your proposed designer that prevents the designer designing something without epigenetic programming? Please be specific about your reasons and evidence for why you “expect” to see this in every design from your designer.

You are making a claim here, buffalo. What is your evidence to support this claim?

rossum
 
Software program are different according to the purpose of the designer.

As far as mutations go the system tries to prevent them as I stated in past posts.

Regulatory networks are what form the body plan. Early mutations in the developing embryo are almost always lethal. The developmental gene regulatory networks are tightly designed. Timing is also important. When a mutation occurs the system crashes just like a computer like the blue screen of death we all have experienced.

For example, when the DGR is executing the program for an arm, if the system crashes or breaks, no arm or a deformed arm is built. The system is so well integrated (designed) it does not tolerate errors.
 
I would respond that what is being addressed has to do with the complexity of the physics and chemistry of life. Bear in mind that this reflects only the perceptual tip of the ice berg, that which the senses detect of a living form. The message is in how things are; how things could have been different in another universe would be beside the point.

I’m going to take this discussion a bit further to show that we shouldn’t be thinking so much about evidence based on old systems of understanding, but rather new approaches which allow us to gaze deeper into the workings of the world

The way things are can be understood in various ways. I sort of have images from childhood of interlocking bits of coloured plastic when I think of molecules, elaborated into computer generated quite complicated images of DNA and proteins. Knowing how difficult it is to get things to come together and work is enough for me to say there are other influences besides blind luck that caused these to form in the first place. And, the feedback mechanisms to keep them intact and make for variations, only contribute to the mystery and awe.

There is another way to think of matter, and that would be as information. DNA clearly demonstrates that role. If we expand that view to include all matter, we get a different perspective of what is happening here as we contemplate these matters. The colours and images and ideas as part of everything else that goes into making the conscious experience of the moment, including the feeling of pressure on your backside when I point it out, can be thought of as the result of matter, what is “out there” and that which constitutes the workings of our neural matrix. Matter is in this light, the program, and the “computer” would be the relational human spirit. From there, we end up with reality as we experience it, because matter is more than just information, it exists in its own right as a form of being, to which we can connect, and feel closer to or more distant.

Being takes many forms, from the simplest atom, with its precise attributes and behaviour to plants that grow and propagate, to animals which recognize and actively seek out food and a mate and move away from danger all instinctively, to we ourselves who possess these same qualities but within a greater capacity for reason and love. All this exists as a tension between individual existence and being part of a greater whole. It’s all particle-wave, organism-ecosystem, individual person-Beatific Vision.
 
Last edited:
Software program are different according to the purpose of the designer.
I am not talking about the purpose of the designer, I am asking why your designer is incapable of designing a system without epigenetic programming. What known facts about the designer prevent him/her/it/them from designing a system that does not include epigenetic programming? Basically, why do you “expect” to see epigenetic programming as part of the design. What are your reasons?

rossum
 
Last edited:
There is another way to think of matter, and that would be as information.
How are you measuring “information”? Shannon information? Kolmogorov information? Some other precise measure of information? ID theorists talk a great deal about “information” but very rarely define it in any objectively measurable way.

You should know that evolutionary processes, such as duplication and point mutations can increase the measure of information in a piece of DNA.

rossum
 
He could. Living systems though are much more sophisticated. Something runs the complex functions that go on in the cell factory. It is now the reality you have to face.

The more we know the more the old paradigm is being left in the dust.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top