How evolutionism destroys SDA theology

[BobRyan]

For example, I worry about The Amoeba In The Soup. We're told that a jillion years ago all sorts of glop and gunch sloshed around in the primeval seas, and lo! a little amoeba-thingy accidentally assembled itself, the way a car does when you shake a bin of parts. It then evolved furiously into Bill Gates.

OK. Fine by me. I can believe that Bill has amoeboid ancestry. Except: How do we know that the amoeba happened? Other than by blind faith?

[karl]

Still enjoying "Fred's" article posted by Karl.

Quote:

Another point--tricky, crucial, and carefully overlooked--is that we don't really know what life is. Evolutionists assume that life is purely chemical: that if we could somehow assemble an artificial cat atom by atom, and then set it to reacting, we would have a genuine, living cat, that would eat mice and miss its litter box. But would we? All known life has come from previous life. Is life merely a complex of chemical reactions? Or is it something that inhabits certain complexes of reactions? Or something else entirely?

We don't know. But we have ample room to suspect that it is something else entirely. Or at least that more is involved than chemistry.

Getting back to that "chemical" problem. When you kill a chicken egg with just the right amount of radiation - what "chemical" is missing in the egg? What chemical can be added to make the egg "alive again"?

in Christ,

Bob

Good point. Also, when someone dies of old age, why does it happen? All the chemicals are still there. And when a person is brain dead but still alive, or an anencephalic person is still breathing, is that life? Or not?

Due to its extreme complexity, ethicists have struggled with defining what life is, but evolutionists blithely insist it is just a happy accident. "No, no, Johnny, you don't understand that colliding planets are a GOOD thing."

Marxism. Tear it up for the "common good" and something better will automatically evolve from the ashes of your destruction.

[Twilight]

Still enjoying "Fred's" article posted by Karl.

Quote:

Another point--tricky, crucial, and carefully overlooked--is that we don't really know what life is. Evolutionists assume that life is purely chemical: that if we could somehow assemble an artificial cat atom by atom, and then set it to reacting, we would have a genuine, living cat, that would eat mice and miss its litter box. But would we? All known life has come from previous life. Is life merely a complex of chemical reactions? Or is it something that inhabits certain complexes of reactions? Or something else entirely?

We don't know. But we have ample room to suspect that it is something else entirely. Or at least that more is involved than chemistry.

Such as consciousness. If anything exists at all, consciousness does. We are all conscious, with the possible exception of network anchormen. Consciousness affects matter: If you will your arm to move, it does. Matter also affects consciousness: If you drop an anvil on your foot, it will decidedly affect your consciousness.

Getting back to that "chemical" problem. When you kill a chicken egg with just the right amount of radiation - what "chemical" is missing in the egg? What chemical can be added to make the egg "alive again"?

in Christ,

Bob

Very good question...

[doug yowell]

These are some great contributions, Karl! Particularly Fred's take. The Ann Coulterish evolutionary pundit. It's hard to read Fred without having to take a few time outs to get myself together again. More than 30 years after my instantaneous recreation, I still find it hard to accept the fact that so many Seventh-day Adventists (alleged)are now convinced that God's Word can only be understood through contemporary scientific analysis. Too deep for me. You guys keep up the good work, I'm paying attention (and learning).

[Guest]

Instantaneous recreation? Yes.....yes I remember that.

[karl]

More from Fred for y'all. I had leave out a paragraph on this one. He got a tad ribald. This is about Darwinian explanations for mating behavior.

July 8, 2007

Oh, the endless, thumping, hope-draining, drab, repetitive soul-crushing tiresomeness of it. I find in Psychology Today a piece called “Ten Politically Incorrect Truths about Human Nature,” explaining various aspects of behavior in Darwinian terms.* The smugness of that “politically incorrect” is characteristic of those who want a sense of adventure without risk. Nothing is more PC than an evolutionary explanation, unless it explains obvious racial differences that we aren’t supposed to talk about.

OK, the authors are going to explain why we mate as we do.

“Blue-eyed people,” they write, “are considered attractive as potential mates because it is easiest to determine whether they are interested in us or not.”

Or, as the authors explain, men like blue eyes because, since eyes dilate when the owner is interested in something, in this case getting laid, and since blue eyes better show a large pupil, then men will know when the woman is interested. This produces more children.

Ponder the solemn fatuity of this. Does any reader over the age of thirteen believe that women with any sort of eyes have trouble letting a man know when they are interested? The authors need to get out more.

Why is this sort of story-telling so widely engaged in when an alert porcupine would reject it? Because it is PC. As a fellow I see on the internet said in another context, “This is a stretch and illustrates how easy it is to believe what fits your world view.” Yep. The authors would find an evolutionary explanation for a loose doorknob.

To be fair, the greater reproductive success of the blue-eyed does explain why they predominate around the planet, with the exception of small population pools such as China, Africa, the Arab world, Southern Europe, Japan, India, Mexico, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and South and Central America. It’s because men in all those dark-eyed, under-populated places can’t tell when women are interested.

Next: The authors say that blonde hair evolved because it loses its luster with age, and turns brown, therefore signaling to a man that the woman is too old to have healthy offspring. That is, it has the evolutionary advantage of keeping its possessors from having many children.

This would seem to indicate that blondes evolved after the invention of shampoo, since the hair of women who never bathe is presumably something short of lustrous. Doubtless men married to blondes—marriage after all seems to be something of a pattern—stop desiring sex when their hair dulls, while men married to brunettes keep at it, producing the huge swarms of dying, defective kids that one usually sees in China, Mexico….

Again, note the complacent absurdity. Do you have difficulty distinguishing between brunettes of 15, 25, 35, 45, and 55, despite dentistry, hair conditioners, and facial creams? But not with blondes, right?

Say the authors, blondeness evolved in Scandinavia because women were covered with clothes and, without hair-luster as a signal of age, men couldn’t tell how old they were. This explains why so many young Eskimo men mate with grandmothers: They just can’t tell.

Does this make any sense at all? It implies, among other things, that young men can’t ask someone. People advanced enough to wear clothes are advanced enough to talk. Do you really suppose that Eskimo boys can’t tell the age of village girls they grew up with? That the same cues as to age that I effortlessly read daily in dark-eyed Mexican women, who characteristically wear clothes, are invisible to Eskimo swains?

Next, breasts ....

An unstated but fairly apparent assumption underlying most discussions of the subject is that mating is entirely physical. The man takes the woman with the biggest breasts and bluest eyes and the most of whatever characteristic is currently thought evolutionarily desirable. Perhaps this could be demonstrated with water buffalo. It isn’t what I see among people.

Rather men seem to want a woman who is reasonably cute, not fat and, by whatever the standards of the particular man, likeable. Conducing to the latter condition are (depending on the man) brains, sense of humor, a minimum of bitchiness, and being a decent human being.

With the exception of brains, these are not evolutionarily respectable categories. Yet, in my experience, bright, vivacious, good-humored, dark-haired and small-bazoomed easily trumps the reverse qualities.

In general, a difficulty with grasping the evolutionary logic here is that of knowing whether evolution is thought to apply to the civilized. It doesn’t seem to, quite. For example, one may read in numerous sources that mankind, having left Africa, moved to colder climes and evolved greater intelligence to deal with the problems of survival in cold places. (Obviously they would have to go north to get smart since, if they already were, they wouldn’t go. Who wants to live in four feet of snow?) The implication is that intelligence increases fitness and should lead to the production of more offspring.

But what one sees today is rapid growth of the population of the supposedly least intelligent, namely black Africans, and the extremely low rate of reproduction of the most intelligent, namely Jews. Within populations, the bright have fewer children than the dull, and whole populations of the heretofore fit, for example Japanese, Germans, Spaniards, Russians, and Italians, are rapidly diminishing. If fitness is measured by reproductive abundance, then their fitness has diminished mightily in a few decades.

Is intelligence not a constituent of fitness? Or has natural selection stopped—assuming, or course, that it worked up to some point? If so, why? When did it stop? Or is something entirely else going on?

To force mating into the mold of reductionist fitness-shopping, it is necessary to connect beauty and sexual attractiveness with fitness. This is easily done by making up stories. I can do it by the hour: Wide-set eyes improve depth perception and prevent death when jumping about on high rocks. Long lashes prevent dust blindness in windy regions. Pretty, even teeth cut food more efficiently, avoiding the metabolic burden of inefficient chewing which, in time of famine, would lead to starvation. Ready laughter clears the lungs and avoids pneumonia. Shiny blonde hair reflects sunlight better and makes it easier for men to find fertile women at a distance.

But it reeks of improvisation, of beginning with a conclusion and putty-knifing the logic. I think of those millions of pitiful Chinese women, sobbing quietly in corners, “Oh, how can I let him know I’m interested when I have these horrible dark eyes? Maybe I can write him a letter….

[karl]

This one is shorter - a kind of summary by Fred Reed. For a whole lot more, go here and click on #267 - Fredwin on Evolution http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm

What Distinguishes Evolution from Other Sciences

Early on, I noticed three things about evolution that differentiated it from other sciences (or, I could almost say, from science). First, plausibility was accepted as being equivalent to evidence. And of course the less you know, the greater the number of things that are plausible, because there are fewer facts to get in the way. Again and again evolutionists assumed that suggesting how something might have happened was equivalent to establishing how it had happened. Asking them for evidence usually aroused annoyance and sometimes, if persisted in, hostility.

As an example, it seems plausible to evolutionists that life arose by chemical misadventure. By this they mean, I think, that they cannot imagine how else it might have come about. (Neither can I. Does one accept a poor explanation because unable to think of a good one?) This accidental-life theory, being somewhat plausible, is therefore accepted without the usual standards of science, such as reproducibility or rigorous demonstration of mathematical feasibility. Putting it otherwise, evolutionists are too attached to their ideas to be able to question them.

Or to notice that others do. They defend furiously the evolution of life in earth’s seas as the most certain of certainties. Yet in the November, 2005 Scientific American, an article argues that life may have begun elsewhere, perhaps on Mars, and arrived here on meteorites. May have, perhaps, might. Somewhere, somewhere else, anywhere. Onward into the fog.

Consequently, discussion often turns to vague and murky assertion. Starlings are said to have evolved to be the color of dirt so that hawks can’t see them to eat them. This is plausible. But guacamayos and cockatoos are gaudy enough to be seen from low-earth orbit. Is there a contradiction here? No, say evolutionists. Guacamayos are gaudy so they can find each other to mate. Always there is the pat explanation. But starlings seem to mate with great success, though invisible. If you have heard a guacamayo shriek, you can hardly doubt that another one could easily find it. Enthusiasts of evolution then told me that guacamayos were at the top of their food chain, and didn’t have predators. Or else that the predators were colorblind. On and on it goes. But…is any of this established?

Second, evolution seemed more a metaphysics or ideology than a science. The sciences, as I knew them, gave clear answers. Evolution involved intense faith in fuzzy principles. You demonstrated chemistry, but believed evolution. If you have ever debated a Marxist, or a serious liberal or conservative, or a feminist or Christian, you will have noticed that, although they can be exceedingly bright and well informed, they display a maddening imprecision. You never get a straight answer if it is one they do not want to give. Nothing is ever firmly established. Crucial assertions do not tie to observable reality. Invariably the Marxist (or evolutionist) assumes that a detailed knowledge of economic conditions under the reign of Nicholas II or whatever substitutes for being able to answer simple questions, such as why Marxism has never worked. This is the Fallacy of Irrelevant Knowledge. And of course almost anything can be made believable by considering only favorable evidence and interpreting hard.

Third, evolutionists are obsessed by Christianity and Creationism, with which they imagine themselves to be in mortal combat. This is peculiar to them. Note that other sciences, such as astronomy and geology, even archaeology, are equally threatened by the notion that the world was created in 4004 BC. Astronomers pay not the slightest attention to creationist ideas. Nobody does—except evolutionists. We are dealing with competing religions—overarching explanations of origin and destiny. Thus the fury of their response to skepticism.

I found it pointless to tell them that I wasn’t a Creationist. They refused to believe it. If they had, they would have had to answer questions that they would rather avoid. Like any zealots, they cannot recognize their own zealotry. Thus their constant classification of skeptics as enemies (a word they often use)—of truth, of science, of Darwin, of progress.

This tactical demonization is not unique to evolution. “Creationist” is to evolution what “racist” is to politics: A way of preventing discussion of what you do not want to discuss. Evolution is the political correctness of science.

[karl]

Starlings are said to have evolved to be the color of dirt so that hawks can’t see them to eat them. This is plausible. But guacamayos and cockatoos are gaudy enough to be seen from low-earth orbit. Is there a contradiction here? No, say evolutionists. Guacamayos are gaudy so they can find each other to mate. Always there is the pat explanation. But starlings seem to mate with great success, though invisible. If you have heard a guacamayo shriek, you can hardly doubt that another one could easily find it. Enthusiasts of evolution then told me that guacamayos were at the top of their food chain, and didn’t have predators. Or else that the predators were colorblind. On and on it goes. But…is any of this established?

[karl]

It is interesting to note that evolutionists switch stories regarding the mechanism of transformation. The standard Neo-Darwinian view is that evolution proceeds very slowly. But when it proves impossible to find evidence of gradual evolution, as for example when sudden changes appear in the fossil record, some evolutionists turn to “punctuated equilibrium,” which says that evolution happens by sudden undetectable spurts in small populations. The idea isn’t foolish, just unestablished. Then there are the evolutionists who, in opposition to those who maintain that point-mutations continue to account for human evolution, say that now cultural evolution has taken over.

Finally, when things do not happen according to script—when, for example, human intelligence appears too rapidly—then we have the theory of “privileged genes,” which evolved at breakneck speed because of assumed but unestablished selective pressures. That is, the existence of the pressures is inferred from the changes, and then the changes are attributed to the pressures. Oh.

When you have patched a tire too many times, you start thinking about getting a new tire.

[BobRyan]

Starlings are said to have evolved to be the color of dirt so that hawks can’t see them to eat them. This is plausible. But guacamayos and cockatoos are gaudy enough to be seen from low-earth orbit. Is there a contradiction here? No, say evolutionists. Guacamayos are gaudy so they can find each other to mate. Always there is the pat explanation. But starlings seem to mate with great success, though invisible. If you have heard a guacamayo shriek, you can hardly doubt that another one could easily find it. Enthusiasts of evolution then told me that guacamayos were at the top of their food chain, and didn’t have predators. Or else that the predators were colorblind. On and on it goes. But…is any of this established?

In the church of evolutionism there is a "story for every outcome".

The evolutionist evangelists seems to forget that a storyline that explains away every outcome -- explains nothing except the "need to explain" when spinning a particular dogma.

So here is the real question - Why do they think "we won't notice"??

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Quote:

In general, a difficulty with grasping the evolutionary logic here is that of knowing whether evolution is thought to apply to the civilized. It doesn’t seem to, quite. For example, one may read in numerous sources that mankind, having left Africa, moved to colder climes and evolved greater intelligence to deal with the problems of survival in cold places. (Obviously they would have to go north to get smart since, if they already were, they wouldn’t go. Who wants to live in four feet of snow?) The implication is that intelligence increases fitness and should lead to the production of more offspring.

ducks and geese have the "brains" to go south when it gets cold.

The PC evol argument above presumes that man was too stupid to notice that the birds were going south "to stay warm in winter", and that their solution was working very well.

But that same PC argument claims that the dummy that could not figure out the benefit of moving south in winter was still smart enough to invent a microwave dish to toast himself in winter while he was working on the Alaskan pipeline. (Thus diminishing his ability to pass on that brilliant trait to his offspring).

in Christ,

Bob

[karl]

[

In the church of evolutionism there is a "story for every outcome".

The evolutionist evangelists seems to forget that a storyline that explains away every outcome -- explains nothing except the "need to explain" when spinning a particular dogma.

So here is the real question - Why do they think "we won't notice"??

in Christ,

Bob

I liked this one:

For example, one may read in numerous sources that mankind, having left Africa, moved to colder climes and evolved greater intelligence to deal with the problems of survival in cold places. (Obviously they would have to go north to get smart since, if they already were, they wouldn’t go. Who wants to live in four feet of snow?) The implication is that intelligence increases fitness and should lead to the production of more offspring.

But what one sees today is rapid growth of the population of the supposedly least intelligent... Within populations, the bright have fewer children than the dull, and whole populations of the heretofore fit, for example Japanese, Germans, Spaniards, Russians, and Italians, are rapidly diminishing. ...

To force mating into the mold of reductionist fitness-shopping, it is necessary to connect beauty and sexual attractiveness with fitness. This is easily done by making up stories. I can do it by the hour: Wide-set eyes improve depth perception and prevent death when jumping about on high rocks. Long lashes prevent dust blindness in windy regions. Pretty, even teeth cut food more efficiently, avoiding the metabolic burden of inefficient chewing which, in time of famine, would lead to starvation. Ready laughter clears the lungs and avoids pneumonia. Shiny blonde hair reflects sunlight better and makes it easier for men to find fertile women at a distance.

----------

Gotta love Fred. He can actually make the combatting of wide-spread ignorance entertaining.

[Twilight]

It is interesting to note that evolutionists switch stories regarding the mechanism of transformation. The standard Neo-Darwinian view is that evolution proceeds very slowly. But when it proves impossible to find evidence of gradual evolution, as for example when sudden changes appear in the fossil record, some evolutionists turn to “punctuated equilibrium,” which says that evolution happens by sudden undetectable spurts in small populations. The idea isn’t foolish, just unestablished. Then there are the evolutionists who, in opposition to those who maintain that point-mutations continue to account for human evolution, say that now cultural evolution has taken over.

Finally, when things do not happen according to script—when, for example, human intelligence appears too rapidly—then we have the theory of “privileged genes,” which evolved at breakneck speed because of assumed but unestablished selective pressures. That is, the existence of the pressures is inferred from the changes, and then the changes are attributed to the pressures. Oh.

When you have patched a tire too many times, you start thinking about getting a new tire.

Here is a simple question:

Punctuated equilibrium, if it is true, would supply creatures right now, that are under extreme pressure, the option to evolve.

How many organisms do we see that are "evolving rapidly" that are under extreme pressure right now?

None that I know of.

Mark :-)

[BobRyan]

Hmm good point. Maybe we will see the appearance of new "greenhouse gass guzzling flying animals".

(Not birds of course - because that would not be "new" as in "Birds came from reptiles" new)

[karl]

ducks and geese have the "brains" to go south when it gets cold.

The PC evol argument above presumes that man was too stupid to notice that the birds were going south "to stay warm in winter", and that their solution was working very well.

But that same PC argument claims that the dummy that could not figure out the benefit of moving south in winter was still smart enough to invent a microwave dish to toast himself in winter while he was working on the Alaskan pipeline. (Thus diminishing his ability to pass on that brilliant trait to his offspring).

in Christ,

Bob

I think you and Fred are on the same page, Bob. I like your illustrations above.

[karl]

More Fred

Lots of evolutionary changes just don’t look manageable by random mutation. Some orchestrated jump seems necessary. How does an animal evolve color vision, given that doing so would require elaborate changes in eye chemistry, useless without simultaneous elaborate changes in the brain to interpret the incoming impulses, which changes would themselves be useless without the retinal changes?

Or consider caterpillars. A caterpillar has no obvious resemblance to a butterfly. The disparity in engineering is huge. The caterpillar has no legs, properly speaking, certainly no wings, no proboscis. How did a species that did not undergo metamorphosis evolve into one that did? Pupating looks like something you do well or not at all: If you don’t turn into something practical at the end, you don’t get another chance.

Think about this. The ancestor of a modern caterpillar necessarily was something that could reproduce already. To get to be a butterfly-producing sort of organism, it would have to evolve silk-extruding organs, since they are what you make a cocoon with. OK, maybe it did this to tie leaves together, or maybe the beast resembled a tent-caterpillar. (Again, plausibility over evidence.) Then some mutation caused it to wrap itself experimentally in silk. (What mutation? Are we serious?) It then died, wrapped, because it had no machinery to cause it to undergo the fantastically complex transformation into a butterfly. Death is almost always a discouragement to reproduction.

Tell me how the beast can gradually acquire, by accident, the capacity gradually to undergo all the formidably elaborate changes from worm to butterfly, so that each intermediate form is a practical organism that survives. If evolutionists cannot answer such questions, the theory fails.

Here the evolutionist will say, “Fred, caterpillars are soft, squashy things and don’t leave good fossils, so it’s unreasonable to expect us to find proof.” I see the problem. But it is unreasonable to expect me to accept something on the grounds that it can’t be proved. Yes, it is possible that an explanation exists and that we just haven’t found it. But you can say that of anything whatever. Is it good science to assume that evidence will be forthcoming because we sure would like it to be? I’ll gladly give you evidence Wednesday for a theory today?

[Twilight]

Hmm good point. Maybe we will see the appearance of new "greenhouse gass guzzling flying animals".

(Not birds of course - because that would not be "new" as in "Birds came from reptiles" new)

I was in a debate with an evolutionist on this point.

I asked him why the Horse Shoe crab had not evolved in over 500 million years.

He stated that it had reached its "peak".

But then he pointed out that there is a mass extinction going on, off of the coast of Japan because of polution.

The mass extinction was of?

Horseshoe crabs...

Maybe they were not so perfectly adapted to the environment after all, was my question.

And why, when they are under such severe evolutionary pressure, have they not evolved to deal with the polution?

[BobRyan]

a winding story to explain every outcome - explains nothing.

[jasd]

QR frame

>>Oprah, Rush Limbaugh, singing commercials, delayed flights, and Evolution. Anyway:<<

Obviously, what follows will be as ‘objective’ as that implied in the above, yes? no personal bias to burnish...?

>>Why, oh why, are the curricula of the schools the business of the courts?<<

Whoo boy! Fred, or is it Barney? Where ya’been? the courts have their hands in like, everything! Why do we think the Dems have laboured so assiduously to stack them with like-minded ideologues?

>>If Pennsylvania wants to mention Creationism, or to require three years of French for graduation, it seems mightily to me that these things are the business of parents in Pennslyvania.<<

Whoo, Fred! ...Barney? Where ya’been? Haven’t you heard of the other shoe – the NEA – like, one of the largest and most politically-connected unions in the USofA? and, oh yeah, they are preponderantly conservative Rebubs, yes? No, Progressive Leftensteins, for the most part.

>>The Catholic Church once burned heretics.<<

Whoa, Freddy boy! Barney? ya’didn’t know that the .Protesors practiced such – likewise? Or, mebbe you’re just pushing an agenda?

>>The Church of Evolution...<<

Okay, I get it; you’s a comedian. So why should I read yous rather than B.C. or Doonesbury? I s’pose it’s tah see why such lengthy cut and paste’s are posted...

>>I note that Compulsory Evolutionists are fellow travelers of the regnant cultural Marxism,<<

Isn’t Marxism the Golem of the Jewish peoples? and don’t religious Jews embrace creationism? But then, Fred (Barney?) seems to have qualified with a “cultural” misdirect.

>>They do not say, “I think Christianity is nonsense and will therefore ignore it,” but rather “These ideas shall not be permitted.”<<

Typical early-evolutionist sacrament – ‘the survival of the fittest’. Point, evolutionists.

>>The justification often is pseudo-constitutional: “the separation of church and state.” Neither the phrase nor the idea is found in the Constitution.<<

Refreshing! though, practically, moot.

>>Creationism, communism, Christianity, and capitalism are all major intellectual currents and therefore ought to be explained to the young. Not likely. The free market of ideas applies only to one’s own ideas.<<

“...it seems mightily to me that these things are the business of parents...” --Fred (Barney?)

Umm, ...seems that, ultimately, guidance and explanations default to parents, yes?

>>...and that ancient people believed that the earth rode on the back of a giant turtle.<<

Mebbe, mnemonic meme? ya’think that mebbe, given a coupla millennia more – anthropologists will think the Lord Gd Redeemer of ‘tribal’ Xtians was a fish?

Moving on...

>>They are simple. (1) Has the chance occurrence of life been demonstrated in the laboratory? Yes or no.<<

Oy! reality check: Similarly, can the Xtian demonstrate (in a lab, yet!) the events of, let’s say, any of the six days of Creation? other than by recourse to the writings of one called Moses?

>>(2) Do we really know, as distinct from guess, hope, or imagine, of what the primeval seas consisted? Yes or no.<<

Primeval seas? Point, evolutionists.

>>(3) Do we know, as distinct from guess, pray, wave our arms, and hold our breath and turn blue, what seas would be needed for the chance formation of life? Yes or no.<<

Umm, might not our blogger be approaching the matter too narrowly? Why could not ‘evolution’ first have occurred elsewhere? such as in the vast distances of space? or even – where dark matter lies? or...

>>(4) Can we show mathematically, without crafted and unsupportable assumptions, that the formation of life would be probable in any soup whatever? Yes or no.<<

Umm, our blogger seems to think that there is no answer; that being so, why does he expect a negative proved? a coupla fries short...? And why the fixation on “soup”? And, if “soup”, then – why not “soup” – probables aside? Wha’s wid dat? Is there measurable evidence that it cannot – if initiated not so much “in soup” but by resonant factors...? Reiterating from an above paragraph, “We don’t know.”

Can the Bible believer show, aside from faith, that Elohim created – mathematics aside...?

The ‘faith’ of evolutionary theories evolve – as does the faith of Xtian believers vis-a-vis expositions upon Holy Writ.

>>This is the behavior not of scientists but of true believers.<<

Are these not the same sort of “scientists” who belong to the bodies setting the curricula of our institutions of learning and who work assiduously against ‘creationists’ gaining a foothold in same institutions of learning – per that implied in an above paragraphs?

Oops, ..suffered an ADD cascade; too much ‘paste’ for one day...

Anyway, “Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind.” --Einstein

[jasd]

...a bit of trivia: the typical ‘person’ is comprised of one-hundred trillion cells, ten trillion of which constitute the intrinsic person. Ninety trillion of the one hundred trillion cells are assorted bacteria, viruses, and parasites. No wonder, we groan for

a new body!

Ninety percent bacteria, viruses, and parasites? Oy! Just think of the possible (evolutionary?) changes made to the ‘body’ should a virus with a couple of malevolent plasmids in its genetic make-up invade our bacterial population!? Speaking of which,

our genome is three percent active; the other ninety-seven percent is concluded to be ‘junk’. Whoa, wait! ‘junk’? why are there sections of sequenced ‘junk’ in our genome which are disturbingly similar to the DNA of viruses? If activated,

what changes might occur to the intrinsic jasd – or some other such equally wonderful composite?

Indeed, what might occur should ‘messenger fragments’ invade and rewrite certain bacteria to photosynthesize as cyanobacteria within the one hundred trillion cells mentioned above – to glow – until they might shine as a starry night; blue-shine. Mutation? Or...?

Mebbe, it is that – ‘evolution’ occurs by mechanism of DNA information in viruses; viruses that have been seeded throughout space in their crystallized form – as many Japanese scientists have proposed. However, that may be,

it seems that organic life is more largely symbiotic than imagined and that – especially we, homo sapiens, have still to attain to ‘full evolution’, as it were. Mebbe, we’re actually in a parenthesis, a pre-punctuated phase, in stasis, yet to transform...

[doug yowell]

...a bit of trivia: the typical &#145;person&#146; is comprised of one-hundred trillion cells, ten trillion of which constitute the intrinsic person. Ninety trillion of the one hundred trillion cells are assorted bacteria, viruses, and parasites. No wonder, we groan for

a new body!

Ninety percent bacteria, viruses, and parasites? Oy! Just think of the possible (evolutionary?) changes made to the &#145;body&#146; should a virus with a couple of malevolent plasmids in its genetic make-up invade our bacterial population!? Speaking of which,

our genome is three percent active; the other ninety-seven percent is concluded to be &#145;junk&#146;. Whoa, wait! &#145;junk&#146;? why are there sections of sequenced &#145;junk&#146; in our genome which are disturbingly similar to the DNA of viruses? If activated,

what changes might occur to the intrinsic jasd &#150; or some other such equally wonderful composite?

Indeed, what might occur should &#145;messenger fragments&#146; invade and rewrite certain bacteria to photosynthesize as cyanobacteria within the one hundred trillion cells mentioned above &#150; to glow &#150; until they might shine as a starry night; blue-shine. Mutation? Or...?

Mebbe, it is that &#150; &#145;evolution&#146; occurs by mechanism of DNA information in viruses; viruses that have been seeded throughout space in their crystallized form &#150; as many Japanese scientists have proposed. However, that may be,

it seems that organic life is more largely symbiotic than imagined and that &#150; especially we, homo sapiens, have still to attain to &#145;full evolution&#146;, as it were. Mebbe, we&#146;re actually in a parenthesis, a pre-punctuated phase, in stasis, yet to transform...

I was just about to mention that!

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: jasd

...a bit of trivia: the typical &#145;person&#146; is comprised of one-hundred trillion cells, ten trillion of which constitute the intrinsic person. Ninety trillion of the one hundred trillion cells are assorted bacteria, viruses, and parasites. No wonder, we groan for

a new body!

Ninety percent bacteria, viruses, and parasites? Oy! Just think of the possible (evolutionary?) changes made to the &#145;body&#146; should a virus with a couple of malevolent plasmids in its genetic make-up invade our bacterial population!? Speaking of which,

our genome is three percent active; the other ninety-seven percent is concluded to be &#145;junk&#146;. Whoa, wait! &#145;junk&#146;? why are there sections of sequenced &#145;junk&#146; in our genome which are disturbingly similar to the DNA of viruses? If activated,

what changes might occur to the intrinsic jasd &#150; or some other such equally wonderful composite?

Indeed, what might occur should &#145;messenger fragments&#146; invade and rewrite certain bacteria to photosynthesize as cyanobacteria within the one hundred trillion cells mentioned above &#150; to glow &#150; until they might shine as a starry night; blue-shine. Mutation? Or...?

Mebbe, it is that &#150; &#145;evolution&#146; occurs by mechanism of DNA information in viruses; viruses that have been seeded throughout space in their crystallized form &#150; as many Japanese scientists have proposed. However, that may be,

it seems that organic life is more largely symbiotic than imagined and that &#150; especially we, homo sapiens, have still to attain to &#145;full evolution&#146;, as it were. Mebbe, we&#146;re actually in a parenthesis, a pre-punctuated phase, in stasis, yet to transform...

I was just about to mention that!

I was thinking the same thing just the other day.

[BobRyan]

Mebbe, it is that – ‘evolution’ occurs by mechanism of DNA information in viruses; viruses that have been seeded throughout space in their crystallized form – as many Japanese scientists have proposed. However, that may be,

evolutionism is a whole forrest of "mebbe"s and little else.

No wonder Colin Patterson refers to its essence as "antiknowledge".

no wonder Patterson laments the evolutionists "stories easy enough to make up but they are not science".

To the evolutionist - no lack of facts, no wrench of science is deemed to be a "problem" for their misplaced faith in the "only origins story acceptable to an atheist".

in Christ,

Bob

[SivartM]

Creationist: "I don't know, but God did it!"

Evolutionist: "I don't know, but evolution did it!"

Wow... that's profound. :)

[karl]

So, can we accept, as the title of this thread implies, that evolutionism and creationism are opposing belief systems?

That is the point.

Evolutionism is not science. It is religion masquerading as science.

And in a head-to-head comparison of the two religions, creationism wins hands down.

The observable reality (not the fairy-tale evolutionary assumptions about it, but the actual reality) supports creationism. Irreducible complexity is real. The existence of consciousness is real. The information in DNA is real. That information is never spontaneously generated is observable. That life always derives from life is real. The absence of transitional forms is real. That evolutionism offers no hope is real.

Give me creationism any day.