Darwin's arguments against God

CMI ^ | Russell Grigg

[GodGunsGuts]

Darwin’s arguments against God

How Darwin rejected the doctrines of Christianity

by Russell Grigg

Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin grew up embracing the ‘intelligent design’ thinking of his day—William Paley’s renowned argument that the design of a watch implies there must have been an intelligent watchmaker, and so design in the universe implies there must have been an intelligent Creator.¹ Concerning this, Darwin wrote, ‘I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley’s “Natural Theology”.² I could almost formerly have said it by heart.’³

Nevertheless, Darwin spent most of the rest of his life attempting to explain design in nature without the need for any purpose or a guiding intelligence...

[CottShop]

[[The field of evolutionary biology is only 200 years old.]]

Lol- ‘only 200 years old’ yet it’s made up of scientists of the brightest minds that have been exploring it for these 200 years, and with recent advances are no closer to understanding how a species could macroevoluve.. nother cop out.

[[We would probably need to study life on Earth for thousands and possibly even millions of years from now to observe considerable biological divergence (or nothing). ]]

Why is that? We have supposedly billions of years worth of fossil records, and ALL we find are compelted fully functioning species, and no evidence for macroevolution- just minor microevolutionary change. How long do you need?

[[We can observe some speciation (particularly among bacteria) in our lifetimes but nothing too radical.]]

Yep- microevolution is cool- Bacteria are still bacteria of hte same kind- no matter how many mutaitons we throw at them- they won’t evovle wings because the info simply is not htere for them to do so- All that can be accomplished is manipulation of hte info already present, and htis has species specific limitations, all precoded, all predesigned, and which protect the uniqueness of each species kind.

[[The problem is that ID hasn’t offered any data or explanations for how a complex life-form can be constructed within days.]]

answer below

[[No one is telling us how God may have done the deed.]]

Two points- YES they ARE showing How God constructed- You REALLY need to read that thread about “Life’s Irreducible Complexities” I pointed you to- It lays out how metainfo comes first, and hten shows the lower hierarchies, and htere relations, as well there are several other htreads here on FR showing how IC is constructed. Heck- Even the Rabid anti-ID scientist Miller showed how IC is intelligently constructed when he went step by step through his carefully explained, carefully constructed ‘natural evolution’ of higher complexity blood clotting- the only problem was that He perfectly described HOW God intelligently constructed a designed IC system- this was a very detailed analysis of blood clotting and al lthe subsystems involved, and how htey ‘could have’ formed and come into play while meshing with the species whole systems without causing problems- but again- it was a VERY complex, intelligently designed and cosntructed process. Miller defeated his own claim with his argument- it was kinda amusing, and sad really that he couldn’t recognize what he was doing in his argument.

[[What equations will be used instead of those for radiometric dating?]]

How about equations that follow the evidences and don’t rely on ASSUMPTIONS? Problem is for Macroevolutionists, the ONLY dating method that even comes close to adhering to the evidences is radio carbon dating, although even htis method steps outside of science by ASSUMING dates beyond 10,000 or so years as htere are NO corroberating known dates to judge by- ONLY assumptions!

[[Wish I was rich enough to perform or fund ID experiments but I’m not. I’m also not educated enough or clever enough to know how to start testing such a hypothesis.]]

Ditto- ID NEEDS to be funded more- AND it NEEDS to form one major group that studies just hte science and reports the facts. While religious beleifs are fine, they should be given outside of the strict science of ID, because ID is an honerable science that sticks to the actual mandates of sciecne when it is done objectively. Sites like IRC are fine, but htey are NOT the mainstay of ID sciecne as a whole, strict science. The site is fine for those who search for God, and don’t mind opinions mixed with the science, but I beleive ID could nd should be doen strictly scientifically because it has a lot to offer-

There are some organizations that do just htis- strict ID science, but it’s loosely organized, and the majority of ID knowledge is gained through sites like IRC which infuse the science with opinion, and peopel assume since they are the major online site for ID, that htey represent the science of ID- they do not- they simply report the science (As well as conduct some htemselves) but also again, they infuse their science with opinions that lay outside of the science (BUT then again, doesn’t ALL science do that?) They arem ostly a repotorting and opining site though. There is sound science presented there and on other such sites, but it’s heavy with opinion too, and hard to dig through, but worth the effort sometimes.

BBut I( truly would like to see one major site that presents just hte strict science of ID Which doesn’t have to posit who or what the intelligence is, but simply present enough evidences to show a NEED for an intelligence- which is hte goal of any forensic science

[Soothesayer]

You don’t care about phylogeny and you demand a complete fossil record even though much of it was lost through time. This is not a “cop out”, this is the geological reality. I COULD refer to many things in religion as a “cop out” but I’m giving it all the benefit of the doubt.

I have ceded to your questions thus far and you have totally ignored the only big question that I posed to you:

Where is your data pointing out the creation of whole lifeforms within days?

I honestly want to see it. That is your position isn’t it?

Until you start coughing up the data, I’m not going to give you any more of mine. These are the terms.

[Soothesayer]

I’ve already responded to all those statements, how many times do I have to repeat myself?

[Soothesayer]

“Really? Got any evidence showing these evolutionary miracles? Didn’t htink so- just more a priori assumoptions”

Do I really have to explain everything?

Burgers, P., and Chiappe, L.M. (1999) The wings of Archaeopteryx as a primary thrust generator. Nature, 399, 60-62.

Chiappe, L.M. (1995) The first 85 million years of avian evolution. Nature, 378, 349-355.

Chinsamy, A., and Elzanowski, A. (2001) Evolution of growth pattern in birds. Nature, 412, 402-403 (26 Jul).

Erickson, G.M., Rogers, K.C., and Yerby, S.A. (2001) Dinosaurian growth patterns and rapid avian growth rates. Nature, 412, 429-432 (26 Jul).

Norell, M.A., and Clarke, J.A. (2001) Fossil that fills a critical gap in avian evolution. Nature, 409, 181-184.

Padian, K., Ricqles, A.J. de, and Horner, J.R (2001) Dinosaurian growth rates and bird origins. Nature, 412, 405-408 (26 Jul).

Speakman, J.R., and Thomson, S.C. (1994) Flight capabilities of Archaeopteryx. Nature, 370, 514.

Unwin, D.M. (1998) Feathers, filaments, and theropod dinosaurs. Nature, 391, 119-120.

Wong, K. (2002) Taking wing. Scientific American, (January), 14-15.

Xu, X., Zhou, Z., and Wang, X. (2000) The smallest known theropod dinosaur. Nature, 408, 705-708.

“Swell cop out”

No, the reality. If I was not interested in your religion, I would make the same types of accusations.

“Sure- ‘real science’ accordign to whom?”

According to those who go out into the field and work very hard to gather data for months or even years at a time rather then just sitting in an arm-chair.

“You might want ot read FR a bit more carefully if that’s what you htinkj- PLENTY of peopel here have asserted just that.”

I was refering to those in the field.

“Swell- but hte point still remains- the ONLY way for a species to achieve new non species specific info that is an absolute MUST in macroevolution, is via lateral gene transference- in ALL species- however, we can’t even discover that it happens outside of bacteria”

I have already discussed the different types of mutations. Did you bother to look them up?

“Yeah? Aint microevolution neato?”

There is no difference between the processes that lead to small changes and the processes that lead to enough small changes to eventually amount to big ones.

“Net loss does not a ‘positive mutation’ make no matter how you slice it- as well, it’s still just that- a mutaiton- Macroevolution is impossible via RS+M”

What does that have to do with my comment? Are you deliberately trying to misrepresent my statement? You realize that I can read previous posts don’t you?

“NO- They are programmed to deal with mutations- big difference”

No-the editing and processing nucleases occassionally fail. Of course, you are not even going to bother to look this up.

“No- I said what I said”

What you said continues to make no sense to me.

“That chart is DELIBERATELY deceitful- those skulls are all drawn the same size when the FACT is that they drew a rat sized aquatic species next to a hippo sized animal skull, and made it INTENTIONALLY look like there was a nice neat progression of the jaw bone between very similar species which was NOT the case at all- this isn’t ‘working with hte evidence’ this was blatant deceit!”

You are angry because they didn’t draw comparative structures to scale?

“Nother nice cop out- At least there are some scientsits who study species that are honest enough to admit there whould be reams of evidence IF macroevolution happened and millions of species supposedly gradually changed”

In an alternate universe, all deceased lifeforms are preserved in magical jars rather than being mostly torn to pieces by moving sediment layers. We do not live in that alternate universe.

“Not one single instance of gradual morphological change”

the whole field of phylogenetic systematics. I’ve already discussed the different ways that genes affect morphology.

“The remarkable similarity among the genomes of humans and the African great apes...The differences reported between human and great ape genomes include cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations. “

I agree

“You are talking about MICROEvolutionary change NOT macroevolutionary change- there is no evidence for macroevolution- so this ‘rate’ can’t even begin to be measured- even with imaginary scenarios of change.”

A macroevolutionary change is simply lots and lots of microevolutionary changes involving genes and environment. You demand time travel evidence so there isn’t anything more to say about this.

“Admission? Nah- could’nt be.”

You weren’t even paying attention to what I was writing.

“I’m not askign anyhting- I gave a link that fully explained and exposed the rediculousness of the idea that open systems are any better for living systems than closed ones based on crystal formations.”

The implications of the 2nd law are incredibly complicated. No real need to worry about crystal formations. We are discussing living systems here. A living system needs energy for chemical reactions but not too much energy in the wrong place or that will denature the proteins.

“No, it calls for ever increasing self assembling complexities of NEW non species specific systems, a process that violates entropy rules as laid out in that link I provided”

Why should I argue with a definition that you made up? This is getting silly.

“This is absolutely irrelevent to the discussion, and nothign but a rabbirt trail to avoid the problem of macroevolution and hte second law.”

That’s evidence of simpler organisms that are more advantageous in their environment than many complex organisms.

“You’re leavign out the next part... and only had bones structures in it’s lobes that could not support their weight”

I was asking how you managed to figure that out. So how?

“JUST a theory?”

The sentence I wrote is just one push of the enter key away. I wrote “hypothesis”. Do you know the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory? Hint: they are NOT the same.

“Turns out Tiktaalik is just another lobe-finned fish with structural innadequacies the same way Caelocanth had.”

That would be very enlightening if true so where are you getting this information?

[Soothesayer]

“Lol- ‘only 200 years old’ yet it’s made up of scientists of the brightest minds that have been exploring it for these 200 years, and with recent advances are no closer to understanding how a species could macroevoluve.. nother cop out.”

They did a remarkably good job despite the lack of time machine.

“Why is that? We have supposedly billions of years worth of fossil records, and ALL we find are compelted fully functioning species, and no evidence for macroevolution- just minor microevolutionary change. How long do you need?”

You are not interested in phylogeny or our attempts at gathering together the fossil record. That leaves us only with real-time experiments.

“Yep- microevolution is cool- Bacteria are still bacteria of hte same kind- no matter how many mutaitons we throw at them- they won’t evovle wings because the info simply is not htere for them to do so- All that can be accomplished is manipulation of hte info already present, and htis has species specific limitations, all precoded, all predesigned, and which protect the uniqueness of each species kind.”

You reject all species definitions so how can I possibly argue that new species originate in our lifetime? .

“..You REALLY need to read that thread about “Life’s Irreducible Complexities” I pointed you to...:”

I’ll check it out in a little while.

“How about equations that follow the evidences and don’t rely on ASSUMPTIONS?”

Radioactive decay is only an assumption? I will address your previous links separately.

“ID NEEDS to be funded more”

I look forward to it.

[Soothesayer]

Some of those articles make good arguments although not yet conclusive. They may very well re-consider the pre-historic ages.

The first article is bunk though. Radiometric dating was discovered by Henri Becquerel and Marie Curie.

[Soothesayer]

I don’t know enough about physics to address this effectively but it may very well be that radiometric dating and other methods are too flawed.

Anyone here a physicist or a chemist?

[going hot]

don’t fall for it. It will only make you look really, really stupid. let it slide.

[going hot]

If evolution happened, the God of the Bible is not real.

So....

Let me get this straight, and feel free to correct me if I don't have the grasp of what you are attempting to convey:

The Lord of the Universe, the creator of everything, that literally means EVERY THING, the creator of the Earth, the stars, the very billions of galaxies and everything contained, that Creator, he simply ceases to exist if some puny humans on a small planet on some indescript rock revolving around one of literally trillions of stars he created actually dare to come up with a theory as to how things ended up the way they currently are, is that the creator you are saying simply is not real if evolution is a fact?

Surely you are wound a little tight? If not, how deep is your faith, really?

What if, just a question mind you, what if He was the intelligent designer of evolution? What then, do we (you, or I or anyone else) disown Him?

[CottShop]

[[Radioactive decay is only an assumption?]]

I’m getting tired tonight- hard to htink, so will only address a couple things- No radioactive decay is constant, in the right conditions, however, we have no idea what past conditions were- that’s where the assumptions come in

[[You are not interested in phylogeny or our attempts at gathering together the fossil record.]]

I’m not? I find this all fascinating- I’m mearly pointing out that it is based on a religious a priori belief however- and as someone said earlier, there seems to be a switch goign on in evolution camps toward genetic ‘continuancies’ but hte truth is, many key scientific comparisons go into trying to piece thigns together- the problem is that it’s still heavily invovled in a priori assumptions with no evidence to back the ‘connections’ up.

[[You reject all species definitions so how can I possibly argue that new species originate in our lifetime?]]

I do? On the contrary, I do accept species definitions- what I don’t accept though is the idea that kidns are of no relevence when scientific disciplines such as Baraminolog who, and animal husbandry show, that kidns are indeed a relavent classification, and that discontinuity is shown both in the records, and in experiments we’ve recently conducted.- There are many species of gulls, and even speciated species such as ring gulls which have lost so much info they can no logner breed with orther gulls within their own kinds, however, they are still gulls, gulls who have hit the limit of species specific paramters. The fossil record is absent any evidence showing say that gulls became another kind- they simply remained gulls though.

[[I look forward to it.]]

Yeah me too- I personally beleive it’s an important discipline when done objectively- I’ve always admired forensic science, and marvel at how precise it can be, and I think ID science can and infact is just as precise when just hte science is presented (Although I certainly don’t mind, or even dissagree with opinions of htose that beleive God is the creator, I just personally think ID science would be better served just serving up the science evidence which itis my beleief that it will stand firmly on it’s own merrits- soem folks however go to great lengths to ‘dress it up’ with opinions- it doesn’t need any dressing up in my opinion, and would I think even strengthen beliefs if just left to it’s own credit)

[CottShop]

and by hte way- thanks for keeping htis civil- I over-reacted, I know, but I’m always on the defensive here I guess as many people just come in here attackign ID with hte same tired out lame broad generalizations time and itme again- it just gets tiring- You’ve not doen so, and I beleive you honestly beleive what you do and respect that- Thanks for a pelasant discussion- I’ll refrain from making broad genralized opinions as much as I can as well, although I’m sorta infused with answering others in like manner when they subtly do nothign but attack ID and creationism with nothign more than fluff and refuted arguements I’m afraid

[CottShop]

[[What if, just a question mind you, what if He was the intelligent designer of evolution?]]

Then there woudl be evidence of it and we wouldn’;t be desperately grasping at examples of microevolution as htough it were macroevolution, which it isn’t- there woudl be ample evidences of actual macroevolution- Nuff said

[CottShop]

[[Where is your data pointing out the creation of whole lifeforms within days?]]

Right next to your copy of the instructions showing how macroevolution beat out all the scientific impossibilites stacked against it of course-

[[Until you start coughing up the data, I’m not going to give you any more of mine. These are the terms.]]

Lol- while you get a free pass and don’t have to cough up actual evidences of macoreovlution- All you have to do is present MICROEvolution and claim “Accumulations of microevolution ‘could have’ led to macroevolution’- how convenient for you huh?

[going hot]

Nuff said

I really, really do enjoy your posts.

Heck, sometimes me and a couple of collegues will actually sit around, pop a few beers, and look for your posts, they are so , so, thought provoking. Please do not stop.

[CottShop]

Ugggh- another long post to respond to-

first of all, all those links are NOT evidences- they are a priori ASSUMPTIONS and wild imaginary scenarios plain and simple. As I said- ‘Real science’ according to who? Those who are great storytellers and just happen to have an a priori religious belief in macorevolution and hte power of nature to ‘just do it’?

[[According to those who go out into the field and work very hard to gather data for months or even years at a time rather then just sitting in an arm-chair.]]

Ah- I see- so field workers imaginations are more ‘scientific’ than are arm chair investiogators? How do you know htis? Have you asked me to make up a story yet? I’ll bet you’ll be quite surprised should you ask- I have an active imagiantion too ya know!

[[I have already discussed the different types of mutations. Did you bother to look them up?]]

I’ve not only looked htem up, but have discussed those claims in detail in many htreads here i nthe past- my answer still stands

[[There is no difference between the processes that lead to small changes and the processes that lead to enough small changes to eventually amount to big ones.]]

And you called me silly? Of course there is a difference- you can’t get new non species specific info by simply modifying info already present in a species that is precoded to have limitation boundaries. You MUST introduce non species specific info from a ‘higher’ source- but as we know, there were no ‘higher sources’ of complexity available to draw from if we’re to think molecules turned into man Mind just briefly running htrough the process of simple chemical assemblies turning into highly complex info for say wings? Or hearing? or Skin? or any number of other complex systems? You demanded I provide a precise biolgoical breakdown of how a Creator created previously, so I’ll throw the ball right back in your court and ask you to provide those examples of chemical arrangements self organizing, mutating,. and evolving complex self assembling complex systems- and remember, we’re literally talking that this must have occured trillions of times for each and every macroevolutionary change, so surely you will be able to provide good examples starting from the very basics of early evolution?

[[You realize that I can read previous posts don’t you?]]

Woops- You can? Shhhh Don’t tell anyone- don’t want anyone catchign onto my tactics

[[the whole field of phylogenetic systematics. I’ve already discussed the different ways that genes affect morphology.]]

you did? Was that in another thread that’s being kept secret from me? Because I certainly saw no such discussion here.

[[You weren’t even paying attention to what I was writing.]]

I’m sorry- what did you say?

[[No-the editing and processing nucleases occassionally fail.]]

And that has to do with hte price of tea in china how again? Programmed systems aren’t allowed to fail otherwise they are noty to be concidered programmed? you’re trapsing far from the trail here-

[[You are angry because they didn’t draw comparative structures to scale?]]

Lol- yeah, that’s it- the deception is all just in my head- there was no intentional deception goign on there at ll- nothign to see here folks- move right along- Silly me. Kids will instantly realize hte two species are the wrong size, and automatically know that millions of years supposedly seperate the two ‘closely related different sized species’ and will.... oh wait- no they won’t- the chart makes NO mention of htose little facts- but wait- there’s no itnentional deception... but wait- maybe hterew might be.... but htere couldn’t be... blah blah blah.

[[We are discussing living systems here. A living system needs energy for chemical reactions but not too much energy in the wrong place or that will denature the proteins.]]

Yes indeed we are- however, this admission does nothign to support hte idea that species somehow miraculously escaped entropy at every single stage of macroevolution, and pointing to an ‘open system’ just makes matters worse, not better- it’s all explained in the link to trueorigins I linked you to.

[[Why should I argue with a definition that you made up? This is getting silly.]]

Yep- it’s made up but it ACCURATELY and PRTECISELY depicts the real problems associated with macroevolution in a way that ‘species’ and ‘similarities’ can not even begin to describe. But if you want ot just wave it aside, I’ll understand- hard to defend a dying hypothesis I’m sure. No sense treading out onto thin ice to do so- too risky- You may be excused from this discussion.

[[ I wrote “hypothesis”. Do you know the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory? Hint: they are NOT the same.]]

My apologies- I thought you said theory- I write quickly with lots of htoughts goign on at once and lost track of what you actually wrote- do I know hte difference? Of course, a hypothesis is what you get when it’s too cold outside, and your toes turn black and fall off, a hteory is what you get when you watch a running segment of shows- a theory of shows

[[That would be very enlightening if true so where are you getting this information?]]

youy’ll find it on the net by htose hwo have studied the structures first hand- Safarati is the name coming ot mind right now, might be someone else- Do I really gotta spend all night looking it up? Whiel I’m doign so, would you mind findign info that states they coudl infact bear hteir weight? I’ll wait

[CottShop]

I know you enjoy my posts hot- there’s no need to state the obvious- I know you couldn’t live without htem- losta folks can’t, that’s why they bait and salt their posts to me- hoping to egg me on- but at least they are gettign hte truth, and learnign how Macroevolution deceives people- which is my main goal in posting here on FR- Exposing hte lies brought to you, I and our children in the name of Darwinian ideology. So yeah- maybe ya better run out and buy a couple of cases of beer so you won’t have to miss anything when running to hte store for more when you cache runs dry.

[Soothesayer]

“[[No-the editing and processing nucleases occassionally fail.]]

And that has to do with hte price of tea in china how again? Programmed systems aren’t allowed to fail otherwise they are noty to be concidered programmed? you’re trapsing far from the trail here-”

My statement was not about evolution per se, it is a basic fact of cell biology. You do not want to discuss the roles of genes and proteins in living systems. I’m not even sure you acknowledge the existence of anything in modern science other than the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, I will argue on your metaphysical terms in a private reply.

[CottShop]

[[You do not want to discuss the roles of genes and proteins in living systems.]]

Oh contraire- you’ve not asked anyhtign in particular- the discussion is about Macroevolution, not microevolution, so if you have soem eviddence that shows macroevolutionary change at hte genetic level, then present it- All I’ve seen from you thus far are statements about microevolution

[[My statement was not about evolution per se, it is a basic fact of cell biology.]]

Swell- But aGAIN, we’re talking claims of macroevolution, so not sure why your running from the trail in all directions? I broguht up the fact that chemicals can NOT account for metainformation, and I’ll bring up the fact that nature is simply incapable of creating PURE chemical assemblies out of hte dirty chemicals found in nature, YET, what do we see in living systems? Yup- PURE chemical assemblies atthe lowest levels. Care to explain to us all how nature managed to refine hte dirty chemicals in nature when it miraculously created all life from pond scum?

[[I’m not even sure you acknowledge the existence of anything in modern science other than the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.]]

That’s because oyu haven’t asked anythign relavent to this discussion- all you’ve done is demand precision while fully ignoring hte imprecision of the broad generalized claims of Macroevolutionists. I’ll reserve the term ‘hypocrisy’ until more time has passed, and see whether you still insist ID, which is FAR more precise than phylogeny and macroevolutionary biology claims, be 100% percent precise while ingoring the glaring imprecision of Macropevolutionary claims- We’ll see how far you take it.

[[Therefore, I will argue on your metaphysical terms in a private reply.]]

I don’t blame you for wanting to bow out the conversation- it’s tough defending the imprecise imaginary scenarios of macroevolution. If you want to change hte subject to biology, that’s fine too, but it just gets worse for macroevolution at hte biological stage.

The closer we examine microbiology, the more apparent it becomes that htere indeed is a system of metainfo, and that nature simply is incapable of constructing the incredibly complex systems and subsytstems in microbiolgy- what was once concidered ‘simple’ has now been discovered to be icnredibly complex, and interdependent on higher systems working relatively flawlessly in ways only a Designer could design, so yeah- whatever- no matter which way you choose to turn, there is evidnece of design that nature simply is incapable of constructing- doesn’t matter to me what you wish to discuss-

but most people here, most anticreationists prefer to just keep presenting generalized statements that they don’t have to put much thought into, because htta would involve actual research and work- they just prefer the petty accusations and imaginary claims most often spouted off by sites like talkorigins and darwin central. A lot less work.

I thought, with the several generalizations you were making, and hte avoidance of specific discussions about macroevolution you were avioding, that you wanted to just stick to generalizations, but if you want to get specific, then by all means present your case.

[[Therefore, I will argue on your metaphysical terms in a private reply]]

Lol- I’ve bene askign for specific physical realities, not metaphysical, don’t start falsely diverting the direction we’ve been heading. There was nothing metaphysical about any of hte 8 points I brought up- I didn’t appeal to any Creator, I simply pointed to hte facts that exposed the claims of macroevolutionists as imaginary intentionally deceitful claims that lack any evidence to support. But whatever, again, if you wish to duck out, that’s fine too- wouldn’t be the first time a macroevolutionist ran from such conversations. It’s a tough position tryign to assert that microevolution can lead to a wholly different biological process of macroevolution. Novel new organs don’t just pop out of nowhere when you muck with the info that is provided, you MUSt introduce non species psecific info from an outside source in order to achieve NEW non species specific info- this isn’t a metaphyisical statement, this is a basic biological fact.

[CottShop]

and no- I won’t spend time spell-checking when being bombarded by myriad claims- not goign to stop and take hte time to do so- so before you ask, the answer is no- occassionally, when I use my blog writing program, I’ll do so, but for hte most part, my posts will be quite horrid to read- but oh well- it excersizes the brain to try figuring out words- staves off alzheimers- so no thanks to me are necessary, glad to help.

[CottShop]

since we’re now apparently copying and pasting pm’s now (I added a comment htough that you’ll see with the -—— ——— lines surrounding it):

[[You’re not even going to look into DNA transcription and protein function in systems living TODAY, cells dividing TODAY. You won’t even use the word “gene” to reply to a comment on genetics. I can only assume you don’t believe in any mainstream science other than the 2nd law of thermodynamics.]]

As I said in my post- you’ve presented NOTHING specific- what is your quesiton or claim regarding genes? I can’t read your mind- I tried, but only saw a dark void- just kidding.

I ‘beleive’ in all kinds of modern science, what specifically are you driving at? Want to take this down to the microbiological level? Be happy to- I find microebiolgoy is even worse for claims of Macroevolution- Be more htan happy to explore that realm if you wish? I’ve doen so many many times here on FR- and quite amazingly, I’ve found that realm supports the concept of a Designer even greater than at hte generalized level of megaevolutionaruy claims.

There’s NO need to look at hte other thread and not argue from a macroevolutionist stance- I’ve even argued from that position myself in that whole thread- trying to figure out IF nature was capable of assembling metainformation fro mscratch- it’s a logn thread, but you’ll find it quite fascinating- and you’re impression of me is quite off I’m afraid- I’m able to look at BOTH sides of hte issue- to think from BOTH angles, and to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, which side presents the stronger case objectively.

—————IF you’re able to further my argument from a natural position in that thread, by all means, feel free to contribute- I think I was on the right path, but got stuck on a few issues, and couldn’t see a resolution- but if you can further my counterargument, I’d be happy to see if it holds water or not if I can——————

Take some time to just read that thread and it’s companion thread (GGG gave hte links in a couple of posts below the article), as well as the discussions that follow. Metainfo deals a serious death-blow to macroevolution I’m afriad- it’s the strongest arguemtn I’ve ever run across in regards to ID/IC- Behe’s examples of IC were fine, but the thread I pointed out takes IC to a whole new level that Behe only touched on. It is my belief that the arguments presented i nthat thread are FAR more important than anythign offered to date in ID/IC circles.

And, this isn’t just a crazy ‘creationist concept’ that isn’t havign any impact on secular science either- All manner of scientists are buisilly trying to come up with a ‘natural answer’ to hte ‘problem’ of metainformation. Demski, who beleives in ID, yet none-the-less mistakenly thinks a Creator of some sort simply began the process of macroevolution, has tried unsuccesfully to assert that higher informaiton can come directly from nature and be assimilated into the genetic makeups of species as they supposedly ‘macroevolved’- but his argument falls on it’s face i nthe mud, as discussed near the end of the thread- agian, it’s a fascinating read- hope you’ll take the time to read through it- if not, oh well. The arguments aren’t from a ‘metaphysical’ position, they directly address chemistry and biology, and determien whether or not nature is able to accomplish the biological complexities witnessed in nature.