Neo-Darwinism is National Disgrace

[Maxwell511]

...and the Universe did not form until life did??

I believe it is called the Animal House theory.

 

[Anovah]

Back On Track Man says "I thought we were talking about Darwin"

 

[Anovah]

I believe it is called the Animal House theory.

On the first day, he created beer. The second he created togas.

(forget what I said about getting back on track. This is too fun)

 

[Maxwell511]

So really we are just recycled material.

Well yes. We are made of recycled animals and plants. Assuming you do eat meat, if not then maybe mostly plants.

 

[EvoDan]

I thought everyone knew we were made up of star dust. So really we are just recycled material.

Well okay... then wouldn't that be the heavens making mutations, sort of? And, if they did, is a supernatural being needed in the equation?

 

[RichardT]

i'm thinking of what I should type here instead of the first thing I typed...

 

[David Gould]

I'm not going to read that whole thing...but were spiders unable to spin webs back then?

Spiders exist today that are unable to spin webs. They produce silk, but they do not spin webs.

 

[supersport]

Spiders exist today that are unable to spin webs. They produce silk, but they do not spin webs.

funny how you single that out...what about the other info that dismantle's your theory?

 

[JohnR7]

Spiders exist today that are unable to spin webs. They produce silk, but they do not spin webs.

Why is it that spiders could spin and weave a million years ago, but they try to say people could only spin or weave 20,000 years ago.

 

[Chalnoth]

Why is it that spiders could spin and weave a million years ago, but they try to say people could only spin or weave 20,000 years ago.

Why does that question have any importance at all? Spiders neither make baskets nor spin material for clothing.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

atheistic intelligence bandits

I have not read this whole thread as I want to have a life, but this caught my eye.

Fade in on a dusty Israeli barren landscape:

"Ok, stop the stage coach, throw out all your guns, Bibles, and any scholarly journals in your possession. Oh, and you, Rachel, throw out those gods as well."

 

[Skaloop]

Why is it that spiders could spin and weave a million years ago, but they try to say people could only spin or weave 20,000 years ago.

Well, they're technically not spinning or weaving, not in the way we do it. We're just applying familiar terms to what spiders do.

 

[TheBellman]

funny how you single that out...what about the other info that dismantle's your theory?

You have never posted anything that dismantle's [sic] any theory.

 

[RichardT]

Why is it that spiders could spin and weave a million years ago, but they try to say people could only spin or weave 20,000 years ago.

maybe because the earth is 6000 years old lol

 

[Maxwell511]

Why is it that spiders could spin and weave a million years ago, but they try to say people could only spin or weave 20,000 years ago.

Why is it that birds could fly millions of years ago, but they try to say people could only fly 100 years ago.

 

[Gracchus]

Neo-darwinism is truly a National disgrace.

Public education in science is truly a national disgrace.

I do not say this as a cheap attempt at an insult.

Yes, you do.

I say it with all honesty.

So! You honestly believe a falsehood?

Satan -- with the help of his little red-headed, mental-terrorist step-child (Charles Darwin) -- has turned this great nation upside-down.

Actually, Darwin turned the world, with the exception of the United States, upside down.

A small percentage of atheistic intelligence bandits have somehow managed to manipulate their way into the hearts and minds of the general population.

95% of scientists, and 99% of geologists and biologists accept evolution. Evolution is too big an idea to fit in the minds of the general population which are filled to overflowing with creationist equine feces.

And this has been done though large-scale, mind-numbing, brainwashing techniques that have convinced a large portion ofAmerica that dumb creatures have evolved into intelligent ones.

Well, let’s be really honest. Some are still dumb creatures.

They have succeeded in convincing many that a tricycle can evolve into the space shuttle through blind and purposeless mutations guided by the mere notion that animals actually breed and have offspring.

I hadn’t heard about tricycles evolved into space shuttles. Have you a citation?

They have dumbed-down society to the point where many people actually believe this stuff....people actually believe that the only differences between sweaty, bug-picking monkeys and humans are short arms and opposable thumbs.

Those aren’t differences. Haven’t you ever seen a nit comb? Ever heard of fleas on humans? Ticks? Monkeys do sweat. Surprise! So do humans.

Some monkeys do have larger canine teeth. Some have prehensile tails. Those are differences.

They think the difference between a hippo and a dolphin is just a series of random mutations that reshape the body.

That is not the difference. That is how the difference came about.

Little gets mentioned about how and where a dolphin's sonar came from.

But it has been studied. Perhaps too little has been done in this field, but you are obviously unfamiliar even with that little.

http://www.spermwhale.org/SDSU/cranford.html
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050514/bob9.asp

Little is mentioned of where a spider got his intelligence to do this:
http://mon-ile.net/carnet/IMG/jpg/spider-web_08-09-2005.jpg

Perhaps because scientists do not suggest that it is intelligence that produces such a web.

All evolutionists can say is that the web-spinning spider and the sonar-using dolphin both had an imaginary common ancestor -- which supposedly possessed these abilities.

You suppose this. You suppose incorrectly.

But the reality is, evolution as darwinists define it is genetically impossible. The follwing quote is from "Genetic Entropy" by Dr. J.C. Sanford:

(Formerly of Cornell University, now of the Institute for Creation Research. I suspect he didn’t get tenure after four years.)

Sanford:

The reality of biology is that selection acts on the level of the organism, not on the level of the nucleotide.

Quite so. It is the individual organism that is selected out.

Sanford:

Genes never exist in "pools", they only exist in massive clusters.

The “gene pool” is the total set of individual genomes of an interbreeding population. Sanford knows this.

Sanford:

Each nucleotide exists intimately associated with all the other nucleotides, and they are only selected or rejected as a set of 6 billion.

Except that most genes have several alleles (versions). It is the expression of the gene in the phenotype that is selected, not the gene.

Sanford:

No nucleotide is EVER inherited independently.

Who said they were?

Sanford:

Each nucleotide is intimately connected to its surrounding nucleotides and they only exist and have meaning in the context of other nucleotides. We now know that human nucleotides exist in large linked clusters or blocks, ranging in size from 10,000 to a million.

These are usually called “genes”.

Sanford:

These linkage blcoks are inherited as a single unit, and never break apart.

Never say never. Google "chromosome crossover".

Sanford:

This totally negates one of the most fundamental assumptions of the theorists -- that each nucleotide can be viewed as an individually selectable unit.

The change of a single nucleotide may or may not change the makeup of the protein that is coded by the gene. Nucleotides are not selected. Genes are not selected. The phenotype, the expression of the total genome of the individual organism is selected.

Sanford:

Natural selection can never create, or even maintain, specific nucleotide sequences.

If the specific nucleotide sequence is a gene, then natural selection can indeed maintain it. Or not. And no real biologist suggests that natural selection creates genes, or alleles. That is done by mutation.

And this evidently is something that has been known for a long time -- at least since 1970 when Kimura proclaimed the same exact thing.

I suspect a quote miner at work. Please cite Kimura.

But yet, the charade of lies continues. The massive brain-washing of society continues like a boulder rolling quickly down a hill. Cumulative selection is still invoked as the mechanism that turned a monkey into a man over at TalkOrigins....and the same mantra is being repeated and defended here daily.

Too bad it didn’t turn monkeys into humans at ICR.

Yet, somehow evolutionists have convinced themselves that whole organs have somehow accidently pieced themselves together one nucleotide at a time

Mutation is more or less random. Selection is statistically non-random.

-- regardless of the fact that fully-formed organisms, with no-doubt fully-formed organs appeared abruptly in the fossil record.

Except for Protists, Poriferans, Cnidarians, et al. which don’t have organs.

But all it takes for them, evidently, is to wave the magic evolutionary wand to make it all happen in their mind.

As opposed to being poofed into existence?

Who cares if there's no scientific method to make this hocus-pocus fairytale come true....as long as they can still hear the faint death rattle in the morals of decaying society, then all is well.

And so, science is a diabolical plot?

And look at the eye. A simple 12 pixel image has 500 million possible connections. How can a series of mistakes account for this?....But the human eye has 126 Megapixels. How can blind accidents accomplish the staggering formation of such an organ?

It is actually simple. The better the visual acuity, the better the chance of survival. The successes remain, the failures are selected out.

And the truth is there is no evolutionary mechanism that allows mutations to occur again and again in just the right place -- over and over and over until an organ is formed.

But the same gene may be expressed multiple times. Google “homeobox gene” or “hox gene”.

This is an impossible myth, especially when you consider how many places a mutation can occur....there are BILLIONS of nucleotide locations that would have to be accidentally mutated at just the right time and place.

Impossible? More impossible than talking snakes and magic trees?

But you know what? I don't think these people believe 95% of what they say.

Have you heard of the psychological mechanism called projection? Thieves think everyone steals. Adulterers think everyone cheats. And liars think… well you get the idea.

But then again neither did Satan in the Garden of Eden.

Ah yes! The talking snake who gets blamed whenever a Christian gets caught. (“The devil made me do it!”)

In fact, deception is a consciously purposeful act.

You would know.

Likewise, I am convinced that the atheist activists who frequent Christian forums like this have no other purpose than pure deception. They love nothing more than the emotional high that comes from the possiblity of stealing someone's faith in the Almighty Creator. There's no other explanation.These are the same people who see nothing wrong with puncturing the skull of a beautiful unborn child via late-term abortion. Debating them is pointless.

Oh no! He has discovered the EAC! I am going to go microwave a kitten! That always makes me feel better.

 

[David Gould]

funny how you single that out...what about the other info that dismantle's your theory?

I singled it out because it is wrong. The spider argument was a huge part of your whole spiel. And yet you do not know this simple, easy to find fact. That to me is a clear indicatation that you are spinning something that is not silk.

 

[PanSapiens]

I think this icon was made just for replying to John.

Congratulations, EvoDan, for being the first person to make me honestly LAUGH OUT LOUD (and not really be able to stop, still) for the entire time I've been doing this forum.

Your comment was just perfect!

 

[supersport]

Gracchus...would you please point me to a neodarwin site that explains to me how evolution works if it is not done in small (nucleotide) increments?.. I would like to read about that. Here's one that verifies what I said.




http://www.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm/printable

[FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Only about one nucleotide pair in a thousand is randomly changed every 200,000 years. Even so, in a population of 10,000 individuals, every possible nucleotide substitution will have been "tried out" on about 50 occasions in the course of a million years, which is a short span of time in relation to the evolution of species. Much of the variation created in this way will be disadvantageous to the organism and will be selected against in the population. When a rare variant sequence is advantageous, however, it will be rapidly propagated by natural selection. Consequently, it can be expected that in any given species the functions of most genes will have been optimized by random point mutation and selection. [/SIZE][/FONT]

And how else could evolution procede if natural selection did not select individual nucleotides? -- that's how animals supposedly built up!
​

By the way...why is it that it's always evolutionists who use that stupid hand-waving or tongue-wagging icon???

 

[shadowmage36]

So did God Create the Heavens and the Earth, or did mutations create the Heavens and the Earth? It has to be one or the other, it can not be both.

*Beats head against wall*

*Repeatedly*

Classic, John, classic. Taking things out of context to make a straw man. Again.

My belief is as follows, for all those who care:

1) God created the universe. Said universe was empty.
2) God created a little ball, smaller than a quark, which contained everything (all matter, energy, dark matter, and dark energy) that would ever exist in the universe.
3) Knowing exactly how the future would unfold (Him being God, of course He would know that), He pushed His proverbial dynamite plunger, and the Big Bang occurred.
3A) Please note that 1-3 most likely happened almost instantaneously-plenty of time for God.
4) The universe proceeded on its own from there, with everything that science has discovered and posited happening from there on in, abiogenesis and evolution included.
5) About 2000 years ago, a boy named Yeshua (or something close to that) was born in Judea, to a young woman. About 30 years later, he began preaching on various social and religious issues of the day. By the grace of God, He performed many miracles and gave signs of his power.
6) After about 3 years of ministry, many Jewish religious leaders began to grow worried about this man being a threat to their power, and had him arrested and crucified.
7) 3 days after His burial, He rose up and left the tomb, appearing to His disciples repeatedly over the course of the next 40 days, before ascending into heaven.
8) History moves on, up until the present day.

Does that help? That's how I reconcile it. It makes sense to me, and it certainly seems very logical and reasonable.

But really. Taking things out of context to make a straw man? Not a good tactic. I put the Nicene Creed in there to prove a point, which I'm sure you knew, and I think you picked that particular line out just to bait me. I am not amused. However, given that I've just picked up the proverbial gauntlet and thrown it right back into your face, I consider this a minor inconvenience at best.

I win.

Next logical fallacy, please?