Skip to comments.Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life (Darwin's epic failure re: comprehensive ToE)
Posted on 11/12/2009 8:53:24 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
By all means! Please entertain us all!
“It certainly would be in character for you though since it adds nothing constructive to FR threads.”
One more clarification for you: “constructive” is not synonymous with “supports BrandtMichaels weak arguments”.
No to what? You say no to an incomplete and out-of-context back quote. You then make an allegation you cant factually support. But, thats what Trolls do: cast aspersions and deny, deny, deny.
Thanks for the additional examples. I will wait and see if science eventually finds these mutations also cause problems rather than improving the DNA code.
Also your tagline says it and you often mention it:
“where dinosaurs live in the time of Man”
This is not a problem for me, too bad it seems to be a stumbling block for you. Are you not aware that since the fall, mankind has and still does survive in spite of meat-eating animals [some are even bigger than us] and poisonous plants? Surely you are b/c even though some do become victims, mankind continues to use his brain to make his family and community safer.
It’s not just a case of being faster than the others being preyed upon, but it’s also the case that we are simply not the favorite food of these man-eating animals and most of the time they show a natural fear of man, hence our God given dominion. They only lose this fear when someone ignoramus thinks they can befriend them, and/or in the extremes of starvation. I’m sure you knew all that in spite of your tagline though.
Are you really as dense as you seem to be?
And that very specific quote was not referenced in my post to you. I specifically referenced a different quote in your post, Anyway, no sane biologist/biochemist would confuse origins of life with evolution of species, and directed your attention to that. You ducked, pretending it never happened (speaking of just a little intellectual integrity to discuss with a minimum of honesty).
But . . . if thats the best you can do . . .
A Troll you are. A Troll doing what a Troll does. Doing Troll is Troll.
Jesus gives us criteria by which to determine if someone is a follower of His.
We are commanded in other places in Scripture to test the spirits to see if they are from God and to compare doctrine to the apostle’s teachings to see if it’s from God.
Believers are not to simply believe everyone who comes along and claims to be from God.
But that is not judging in the condemning sort of way. That’s Christ’s job and He will do it.
But there’s no other way to point out error and warn people that they are on the wrong path than to point out error. If they don’t want to hear it and shut down debate by accusing the other person of *judging*, then so be it. That’s their choice.
But recognizing and pointing out that something doesn’t line up with Scripture is necessary, otherwise there would be no way for people on the wrong path to find out.
Not telling them that they are in error compared to the Bible is not doing them any favors.
I thought you got a little rough on me there but I’ll explain. That book was the inspiration for Sanger (abortion), Hitler (the master race), and the eugenicists who sought to build a better human being by removing as much as possible members of undesirable ethnic groups, the congenitally disabled and those of low intellectual ability from the gene pool.
There’s a philosophy wrapped around the science in that book.
I thought folks would get my meaning when I compared it to a recipe book.
I do not dispute all modern biological teaching or call for it to be replaced by the teaching of Creationism or Intelligent Design. But, like Einstein, I think science might be about figuring how God did it.
Best wishes, nice to meet you.
Ducked? No, sir. I supported my “no sane biologist...” claim with a particular excerpt from the UBerkeley page (initially used as evidence by YOUR side) that clearly states that they consider the existence of self-replicating systems mandatory for natural selection to occur. CONTRARY to the initial metmom’s claims, contrary to the reason for GGG to initiate this thread, and contrary to your current spinning and twisting the truth.
Why don't you guys do it consistently? Point out, please, to passages suggesting flatness of the Earth or the Earth being the center of the Universe (if read literally), and to the fact that contemporary astronomy and geography seem not to line up with Scripture.
Been there, discussed it on FR, and to my great amusement the YECs suddenly knew the words "poetic" and "allegorical".
Who said anything about "improving the genetic code? This shows a lack of understanding of genetics and population biology. Beneficial mutations are only beneficial for a set of circumstances. Change the circumstances and anything can happen. There is no perfect genetic coee by which the code is striving to reach.This is not a problem for me, too bad it seems to be a stumbling block for you.
It's a problem for anyone that thinks that Man walked the earth with 100+ species of large meat eating dinosaurs.
Are you not aware that since the fall, mankind has and still does survive in spite of meat-eating animals [some are even bigger than us] and poisonous plants?
I am unaware of something called "the fall" ever actually happening. Go on and compare 100+ large species of meat eating dinosaurs with possible predators of today. Lions are not Tyrannosaurus rex or any of the other 100+. You think T. rex ever feared this Man he lived with? Just....wow.....it gets even better.
Precisely. E.g. the skin pigmentation. White skin is an evolutionary adaptation to living at higher latitudes, where people with darker complexion suffer from vitamin D deficiency. But under different circumstances this mutation, beneficial in Northern Europe, can become detrimental (too much sunshine, skin cancer).
Of course not. I'm not trying to weaken the truthfulness of Scripture. I'm trying to show that your standard for what "truth" entails is malleable.
Do I believe that they exist in some manner that we don't fully understand and that the description of them as God gave us is the most accurate that we are able to comprehend?
Pretty much how I feel about the Creation account.
I think its actual *windows* (floodgates) of heaven but its better to use the definition than a Hebrew word that nobody can translate.
As far as I know, the Hebrew word in all its senses refers to openings in a physical barrier. If you don't think there was a real physical barrier with gates/windows/whatever that were opened to let the water through, then you must think the Bible has lies in it. Do you in fact believe there was once a physical barrier in the sky with openings to let water through?
Jesus gives us criteria by which to determine if someone is a follower of His.
I think He told us the criteria He'd be using to determine that. I think He explicitly told us not to try to make that determination ourselves.
But recognizing and pointing out that something doesnt line up with Scripture is necessary, otherwise there would be no way for people on the wrong path to find out.
Pointing out your disagreement with their interpretation is one thing. Labeling them "not a true Christian" is quite another.
Eugenics, master-race idiots, atrocious social programmers of one sort or another have been around for much longer than the ToE....and ya don't need the ToE to behave as such. A simple understanding of genetics that even wild animals understand would suffice. In MY family's ancient history, they would move into a new settlement, kill all the men, rape all the women, burn all evidence of the other family and claim all as their own.....a means of ensuring the population was all "them"...and the expansion of their world.
I do not blame the inventor of gun powder for all the current deaths by firearm in inner-city America any more than Darwin gets the blame for atrocities of those that might have taken his idea and perverted it for their own maniacal needs.
Welcome to the site....
What about the Kuiper Belt and the Oort cloud? Do they not constitute some kind of real physical barrier? Are both not filled with material composed largely of water mixed with dust (plus metals, and rocks)? For those large and small comets, and the water they hold, to escape their barrier, does not someone/something have to open a gate/window/whatever? Would anyone prior to the last century have understood what The Bible meant by the Kuiper Belt or the Oort cloud? Certainly not before the terms were invented. Literal or allegorical? Yes, I think.
I recall, as a child, viewing a medieval representation of the Churchs concept of the firmament and the waters it held back. It was composed of great sweeping domes, supported by towering pillars. I remember thinking then that their idea didnt quite get to the heart of the issue, but that it was probably the best they could do at the time, considering the extent of their knowledge. Decades later, I recall hearing about scientists theorizing on the origin of the presence of water on Earth. The consensus seemed to be that 90% of the water on Earth most likely came from comets. That strikes me as a better understanding of the waters of the firmament than soaring domes and towering pillars.
None of the above will likely be found satisfactory for some on this forum. But, for those of us who seek the truth, both of scripture and science, it seems possibly to be a reasonable starting point.
You ignored your claim, treated it like poison ivy in fact, until I refused to allow you to get away with it. At that point you reverted to your quote, and tried to fit it to everything. But it shows Berkeley to be, at best, self contradictory, in light of its conflicting website quotes provided by me. Try as you might, you cant put enough lipstick on that pig.
But . . . if thats the best you can do . . .
Not literally. The objects in the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud aren't orbiting behind some kind of physical barrier. If someone wants to think of "opening the windows of heaven" as a metaphor for the gravitational perturbations that might send a comet towards us, that's fine. But that's not literally what's going on.
the Churchs concept of the firmament and the waters it held back. It was composed of great sweeping domes, supported by towering pillars. I remember thinking then that their idea didnt quite get to the heart of the issue, but that it was probably the best they could do at the time, considering the extent of their knowledge.
That's pretty much what the Bible describes, IMO. Which is fine--I don't consider that a "lie." I'm just always amused by how some demand the six-day-creation, dust-of-the-earth part be taken as literally true (or you're not a "real Christian"), and yet tie themselves in knots explaining how the "windows of heaven" don't really mean windows.
Truer words were never spoken.
Evos won't be satisfied with any explanation of something in Scripture unless it fits their secular, materialistic, naturalistic worldview.
They'll have you chasing your tails with "what if's", demanding explanations for things in Scripture that no man can give because God didn't give us enough information and we don't know enough anyway.
And even if you can give a reasonable answer, it will be rejected off hand as not verifiable, which everyone knew all along, without resorting to denying it and having to refer to it as allegory in a vain effort to reject Scripture without coming right out and calling God a liar.
For the skeptic, even if someone rises from the dead, they won't be convinced. They won't believe God's word until they want to believe it.
It's never a matter of *can't* believe, but *won't* believe. God has given us enough to demonstrate His trustworthiness in things that we can understand, so that we can have confidence in the truthfulness of Scripture for those things we can't ever understand.
Well, I definitely know of many liberals (actually, this is a cornerstone of the liberal mindset) who reject evolution, its principles and implications. Just ask James Watson (the double helix guy, who got busted for suggesting that different groups of people may have evolved separately, to a different outcome with respect to IQ; his liberal opponents, on the other hand, seem to believe that humans were created according to their kind, in a biblical manner).
What is the “cornerstone of the liberal mindset”...liberals know alot of fellow liberals...?
James Watson’s a liberal?
Wow...not the first name that would come to my mind, but OK...I’d like to see his political ideology...his support of big govt, science run by the NEA, votes and/or donates to hypocrats...etc.
But giving the benefit of the doubt, who are these so-called “liberal opponents” of his supportive of biblical creation?