The Dini-gration of Darwinism

AgapePress ^ | April 29, 2003 | Mike S. Adams

[martianagent]

Sorry, that should have been posted to patrickhenry.

[general_re]

He won't know it unless you call his attention to it, though ;)

[PatrickHenry]

Comment #271 Removed by Moderator

In case anyone is wondering, #271 was a post of mine, addressed to Junior. I think it was a comment about his #266. (I assume that providing this minimal information doesn't violate the rules of this website.)

[Junior]

By your lights, we could also teach them numerology in math class. Oh, I forgot, numerology is verboten according to the Bible and is therefore a pseudoscience. We can't be teaching our kids pseudoscience now, can we?

[PatrickHenry]

You're saying that with all the drugs, sex, and violence which kids have to deal with on a daily basis, the main thing you worry about is kids being exposed to creationism?

No. I didn't say anything evem remotely close to that. But what I did say (in post 271) was found to be so horribly offensive that it's been deleted.

[martianagent]

Looks like you just did that. This things sounds like something from the Music Man: We got TROUBLE, yes trouble, with a capital T and that rhymes with C and that stands for creationism.

[kkindt]

There is no point of view with regard to origin of life that is scientific. Can't be. If you assume matter and the universe are self-existent - never had a beginning - that is not science but a religion called materialism or naturalism. It is just as much an ism as theism.

Question is why would a person want to to think he originated from non-personal matter? Logic tells me he doesn't want to be responsible to a Creator who is personal so he doesn't feel guilty for going against the will of a personal creator. It is not science to believe you had a non-personal origin out of some goofy explosion of stuff and kaboom here you are as a person out of non-personal stuff? WHy believe this because it is not science and there is no evidence for it. There is evidence for devolution - creatures becoming LESS than what they once were but there is no evidence for creatures becoming better than they once were through mutations. Mutations observed by science are ALWAYS harmful to creatures and never helpful. Yet evolutionist keep on believing that there must have been some great and good mutations in the past we just haven't observed.

[Junior]

That's weird. There's nothing in post 271 that would warrant being pulled. I've still got a copy in MY COMMENTS, and I've gone over it a couple of times to see if there are any hidden code words. There are no insults, no profanity or personal attacks against anyone on the thread.

[PatrickHenry]

There are no insults, no profanity or personal attacks against anyone on the thread.

I know. That's how it is around here. Whatcha gonna do?

[Junior]

There is no point of view with regard to origin of life that is scientific. Can't be. If you assume matter and the universe are self-existent - never had a beginning - that is not science but a religion called materialism or naturalism. It is just as much an ism as theism.

Huh? The Big Bang (origin of the universe) is perfectly acceptable science. It makes predictions that can be tested (and have been verified) and so it stands up pretty well. As for the coming into existence of the first life, we must first define life. Is it a self-replicating molecule (there are plenty of those). Is it a self-replicating molecule in a particular environment such as a lipid-like bubble as are found in interstellar dust clouds? Are virii living? Or do you consider bacteria to be the simplest living things. As you can see, non-life can shade gradually into that which we consider life; there doesn't seem to be some magic cut-off point with everything on one side being living and everything on the other being non-living.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

It's awful quiet out there...(sound of crickets)

A little too quiet...

[Junior]

Question is why would a person want to to think he originated from non-personal matter?

Why does it matter? Are you offended that you may have come from some non-human ancestor and ultimately from some self-replicating molecule? That's almost like the noveau riche who will have nothing to do with their more vulgar relatives as they are embarrassed by them.

[f.Christian]

To: Ichneumon

inm ...


The first is that Cadillacs and spaceships are extremely poor and therefore conceptually prejudicial examples of what sort of things might be possible by "natural" processes of any kind.

ma ...


The complexity of a single-celled organism is not comparable to an automobile, or even an automobile factory, but roughly to a city with all of its factories or a nation with all of its cities. A self-aware organism would be vastly more complex than that.


102 posted on 04/28/2003 8:01 AM PDT by martianagent

[Lurking Libertarian]

There is no point of view with regard to origin of life that is scientific. Can't be.

The theory of evolution deals with how life developed after it began reproducing, not with the origin of life.

If you assume matter and the universe are self-existent - never had a beginning - that is not science but a religion called materialism or naturalism. It is just as much an ism as theism.

The origins of matter and the universe are yet a third question, unrelated to either the origin of life or the theory of evolution.

Question is why would a person want to to think he originated from non-personal matter? Logic tells me he doesn't want to be responsible to a Creator who is personal so he doesn't feel guilty for going against the will of a personal creator.

Why do you assume all people who believe in evolution are atheists?

It is not science to believe you had a non-personal origin out of some goofy explosion of stuff and kaboom here you are as a person out of non-personal stuff? WHy believe this because it is not science and there is no evidence for it.

Again, that's not what the theory of evolution is about.

There is evidence for devolution - creatures becoming LESS than what they once were but there is no evidence for creatures becoming better than they once were through mutations.

Not so. See the links in post #240.

Mutations observed by science are ALWAYS harmful to creatures and never helpful.

Ever hear of bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Question is why would a person want to to think he originated from non-personal matter?

This question shows the essential identity between the Creationists and the Post-Modern-Deconstructionists: projection of one's wants onto scientific questions. In scientific inquiry, one takes what one gets, not what one wants. Asking whether one originated from non-personal matter is a biochemical question (not part of evolutionary theory however). Asking if one wants to think he originated from non-personal matter is question about feelings. The main objection of scientists to the Creationist-Post-Modern-Deconstructionist view of scientific inquiry is that CPMD's place feelings above evidence.

[PatrickHenry]

It's awful quiet out there...(sound of crickets) A little too quiet...

Careful. Best to lie low. The mods are restless ...

[whattajoke]

Ah, yes, crickets. A fine example of speciation via evolution. God must have been feeling especially creative that day to make each speicies have a distinctly different leg rub chirp (if only discernable to their ear-like structures). Or maybe sexual selection and environmental pressures and natural selection played a part?
http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/wilczynskilab/evolution_of_communicatio.htm

[balrog666]

Comment #271 Removed by Moderator

That is, to all appearances, irrational. Isn't it quoted in it's entirety in #275?

[PatrickHenry]

Isn't it quoted in it's entirety in #275?

That's the operative part, and presumably the "offensive" part. But the post contained another paragraph before that. If you want to see it, lemme know. But trust me, it's no big deal.

[kkindt]

The athiestic scientist wants us to think that he has no vested interest in their NOT being a personal God to whom he is obligated. But he does. It is not good pretending that science proves there is no personal God - how could it? The evidence for thought behind what we see in the bees, the flowers is so obvious that to NOT believe there is thought behind what we see reveals a prejudice that is NOT scientific but arises from a rebel's heart. Yes, you can "Say" you have come to your "feelings" about their "NOT being a Creator" but those feelings are there because you DO NOT WANT to be responsible to a Creator. IN SCIENCE ONE TAKES WHAT ONE GETS???? SO you think you have come to NOT BELIEVING in a personal Creator through scientific cold pure logic do you? FEELINGS above evidence? I'll say you do. What sins of thought word and deed are you trying to not feel guilty for?