Neo-Darwinism is National Disgrace

[mark kennedy]

Oh, really. Like the lack of ERV's? That's about as solid of evidence as you can get. Talkorigins has a lot more on the subject, too:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4

...including things like transitional forms, and a nested hierarchy of morphological characteristics.

First of all the ERVs don't interest me in the slightest, it's like geology and radiometric dating, it doesn't mean anything to me.

The transitional forms do not exist, human ancestory goes from Homo habilis to Homo erectus with nothing in the transitional phases. Jumping from 600cc to 1,000cc is not an evolutionary process it's a giant leap that cannot be accounted for with known genetic mechanisms.

 

[Chalnoth]

First of all the ERVs don't interest me in the slightest, it's like geology and radiometric dating, it doesn't mean anything to me.

This reminds me of a quote from "Liar Liar" which I will attempt to paraphrase:

"Your honor, I object!"
"Why?"
"Because it's devastating to my case!"

Just because you don't want to hear about it doesn't mean it isn't solid, irrefutable scientific evidence.

The transitional forms do not exist, human ancestory goes from Homo habilis to Homo erectus with nothing in the transitional phases. Jumping from 600cc to 1,000cc is not an evolutionary process it's a giant leap that cannot be accounted for with known genetic mechanisms.

Not all transitional forms have been found. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Fossils are rare, and absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

First of all the ERVs don't interest me in the slightest, it's like geology and radiometric dating, it doesn't mean anything to me.

And you feel justified in arguing against evolution, yes?

 

[mark kennedy]

This reminds me of a quote from "Liar Liar" which I will attempt to paraphrase:

"Your honor, I object!"
"Why?"
"Because it's devastating to my case!"

Just because you don't want to hear about it doesn't mean it isn't solid, irrefutable scientific evidence.

It's not even real proof, all that matters is how inheritable traits improve features. I don't care how old the earth is so I figured I might as well be a young earth creationist. I don't care about ERVs because they were just a germline invasion that happened to be inserted into the same sequence. None of this has any bearing on the change of alleles in populations over time.

I would object to them both being irrelevant particularly when the case I'm making is that apes can't evolve into humans.

Not all transitional forms have been found. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Fossils are rare, and absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.

That's funny, there are dozens of them for the human lineage but only one for the chimpanzee. The reason is that every time they dig up an ape fossil they claim it's one of our ancestors. No one seems interested in asking the real question of how an ape brain triples in size.

 

[nvxplorer]

I don't care how old the earth is so I figured I might as well be a young earth creationist.

If you didn't care how old the earth was, you wouldn't be a YEC. You wouldn't be an OEC. You wouldn't identify yourself at all regarding the age of the earth, because you don't care how old the earth is.

 

[mark kennedy]

And you feel justified in arguing against evolution, yes?

I don't argue against evolution, I argue against the single common ancestor model. Evolution is based on Biology and genetics it has nothing to do with ape-men, dino-birds or bacteria and fauna turning into plants and animals.

I don't argue against evolution, in fact I'm the most radical evolutionist on these boards. I don't advertise that too much because I'm interested in learning about evolutionary mechanisms, the more dynamic and vigerous the better.

 

[mark kennedy]

If you didn't care how old the earth was, you wouldn't be a YEC. You wouldn't be an OEC. You wouldn't identify yourself at all regarding the age of the earth, because you don't care how old the earth is.

I don't care because the earth being here for billions of years does not change my view one bit. Human ancestory is the only thing that conflicts with my view and I do have one side issue I'm working on. Whether evolution is gradual, uniform and cumulative or if it is dramatic, discordant and cyclical.

I know that is not a typical creationist approach but none the less my interest in the subject.

 

[selfinflikted]

Neo-darwinism is truly a National disgrace. I do not say this as a cheap attempt at an insult. I say it with all honesty. Satan -- with the help of his little red-headed, mental-terrorist step-child (Charles Darwin) -- has turned this great nation 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.

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. 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. 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. They think the difference between a hippo and a dolphin is just a series of random mutations that reshape the body. Little gets mentioned about how and where a dolphin's sonar came from. 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

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.

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

The reality of biology is that selection acts on the level of the organism, not on the level of the nucleotide. Genes never exist in "pools", they only exist in massive clusters. Each nucleotide exists intimately associated with all the other nucleotides, and they are only selected or rejected as a set of 6 billion. No nucleotide is EVER inherited independently. 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 linkage blcoks are inherited as a single unit, and never break apart. This totally negates one of the most fundamental assumptions of the theorists -- that each nucleotide can be viewed as an individually selectable unit. Natural selection can never create, or even maintain, specific nucleotide sequences.

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

Yet, somehow evolutionists have convinced themselves that whole organs have somehow accidently pieced themselves together one nucleotide at a time -- regardless of the fact that fully-formed organisms, with no-doubt fully-formed organs appeared abruptly in the fossil record. But all it takes for them, evidently, is to wave the magic evolutionary wand to make it all happen in their mind. 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 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? 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. 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.

But you know what? I don't think these people believe 95% of what they say. But then again neither did Satan in the Garden of Eden. In fact, deception is a consciously purposeful act. 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.

Supersport, let me ask you something. You keep insisting that there is some sort of conspiracy going on here, where scientists, the media, schools, etc etc are "brainwashing" society into believing in the ToE. But for what? What's the point? If there were some evidence to the contrary, what would be the point of this alleged cover-up? I don't understand the motive for such a thing.

 

[JohnR7]

But for what? What's the point?

The point is that they are against Creationism and they are against God. They have joined the rebellion against the most High God.

Abraham was called out from among the people at UR. A people who were very advanced in science. But they had truth mixed together with error. Abraham was called out to take a stand for the truth and to take a stand against the error of his day.

Today we have been adopted into the family of Abraham. Just like he took a stand for the truth in his day, we follow and take a stand in our day.

The early church fathers took a stand for the truth. They argued against the ungodly beliefs of the Greeks, Romans and science of their day.

The Bible is given to us as a example for us to follow. Everyone can find themselves in the Bible. Either to bring honor to God or to dishonor God.

It is a choice we all make if we are going to seek after God and if we are going to seek the ways of God.

We can choose life, health and healing, or death destruction and desolation.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

The point is that they are against Creationism and they are against God. They have joined the rebellion against the most High God.

Abraham was called out from among the people at UR. A people who were very advanced in science. But they had truth mixed together with error. Abraham was called out to take a stand for the truth and to take a stand against the error of his day.

Today we have been adopted into the family of Abraham. Just like he took a stand for the truth in his day, we follow and take a stand in our day.

The early church fathers took a stand for the truth. They argued against the ungodly beliefs of the Greeks, Romans and science of their day.

The Bible is given to us as a example for us to follow. Everyone can find themselves in the Bible. Either to bring honor to God or to dishonor God.

It is a choice we all make if we are going to seek after God and if we are going to seek the ways of God.

We can choose life, health and healing, or death destruction and desolation.

So why is it again that you’re not against God™ since you believe in an old universe, a spheroid earth, and a heliocentric solar system?

 

[selfinflikted]

The point is that they are against Creationism and they are against God. They have joined the rebellion against the most High God.

Abraham was called out from among the people at UR. A people who were very advanced in science. But they had truth mixed together with error. Abraham was called out to take a stand for the truth and to take a stand against the error of his day.

Today we have been adopted into the family of Abraham. Just like he took a stand for the truth in his day, we follow and take a stand in our day.

The early church fathers took a stand for the truth. They argued against the ungodly beliefs of the Greeks, Romans and science of their day.

The Bible is given to us as a example for us to follow. Everyone can find themselves in the Bible. Either to bring honor to God or to dishonor God.

It is a choice we all make if we are going to seek after God and if we are going to seek the ways of God.

We can choose life, health and healing, or death destruction and desolation.

LoL

 

[Chalnoth]

It's not even real proof, all that matters is how inheritable traits improve features. I don't care how old the earth is so I figured I might as well be a young earth creationist. I don't care about ERVs because they were just a germline invasion that happened to be inserted into the same sequence. None of this has any bearing on the change of alleles in populations over time.

No. The statistics of coincidences are completely and utterly different from the statistics of similar ERV's due to common descent.

In a situation where you have common descent, you expect to see a hierarchy of organisms with more ERV's in common with those that share more recent common ancestors.

In a situation where you have coincidences, you expect commonalities to be largely uncorrelated with morphology or genetics (viruses can, after all, transfer across species...you've heard of the bird flu, right?).

The genetic evidence shows the former scenario. Thus coincidences are ruled out as a cause of the commonalities.

I would object to them both being irrelevant particularly when the case I'm making is that apes can't evolve into humans.

Except they did, and the evidence shows this.

That's funny, there are dozens of them for the human lineage but only one for the chimpanzee. The reason is that every time they dig up an ape fossil they claim it's one of our ancestors. No one seems interested in asking the real question of how an ape brain triples in size.

1. More recent fossils are easier to find.
2. Scientists are probably more interested in human evolution than chimpanzee evolution.
3. Lay people are certainly more interested in human evolution than chimpanzee evolution, thus you wouldn't see that much in the way of research on chimp evolution outside of the field, even if the research was conducted.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The point is that they are against Creationism and they are against God. They have joined the rebellion against the most High God.


so the scientific principle of common descent expresses a rebelliousness towards God. then why does nature look like it evolved? why does all the data point towards common descent being a good explantory principle to unify living creatures?
is God being deceptive and designing it so that it looks evolved to trap all those that look at the evidence?

if you can not see the evidence in any other way than as support of common descent does that mean no matter what else you might believe that you are in rebellion towards God?


doesn't that make an understanding of origins more important, more determinative of a person's relationship with God than anything else?

it appears that this makes origins more important than Jesus, his death and resurrection, which is always what i thought was the central theme of Christianity.

o'well, i guess in a scientific age, scientific principles ought to be raised to the level of essential theological truth(actually it is raised above).

 

[Maxwell511]

Darwin's image can be found on the 10 pound Sterling note, do you what else can be found on it?

Neo-Darwinism turns people into drug addicts. It's a scientific fact.

 

[PanSapiens]

Hey Mark, I've been trying to chase you down to get your answers on a few things. Since you seem to be keeping up with this post, I've pasted a portion of one of my previous posts to you that you never answered. How about have a go at it?

...

Also, Mark, I've posted the following several times in these forums: if there were a world-wide flood that covered all but the tops of the highest mountains, then fish, turtles, dolphins, eels, sharks, and other marine mammels would have quickly and easily been able to cross the TINY strip of land known as Latin America. But, in fact, this is NOT what we find! The marine species a few miles from each other in the Atlantic and Pacific sides are WHOLLY DISTINCT. Again, to the evolutionist this is no surprise, for they have not been able to intermingle. What is your answer?

(This next part is related to the ERVs you "don't care about" because, as Chalanoth said, they're devestating to your case!! LOL!! "Liar, Liar" - great movie!)

Also, you failed to tell me in our last go-'round why there are specific genetic mutations found in apes and humans alike. Don't give me the "same mechanisms" junk either! An 8 nucleotide deletion could happen anywhere in the 3+ billion nucleotide genome. Why do humans and chimps have the same one in steroid 21 hydroxylase PG? To evolutionists this is no surprise. What is your answer?

The fact is, evolution is a better theory because it provides a more parsimonious description of the world, and needs not rely on supernatural "because god said so" explanations.

 

[JohnR7]

so the scientific principle of common descent expresses a rebelliousness towards God.

It is not a scientific principle. If you think it is then you have allowed yourself to get caught up into their deception.

why does all the data point towards common descent being a good explantory principle to unify living creatures?

The data is only a comparison. It is a way to organize things.
The Greeks did that thousands of years ago long before Darwin came along.
Just because some things are more alike than others does not show common descent.

is God being deceptive and designing it so that it looks evolved to trap all those that look at the evidence?

I thought you were a christian? Why would you ask me a question like that. God does not deceive people Satan deceives people.

1 Cor. 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness";

if you can not see the evidence

There is no evidence for evolution because it is a philosophy and there is no evidence for philosophy.

rebellion towards God?

That is why we have a Bible that is inspired by God.
Give me scriptures, give me God's opinion, not man's opinion.
Man will perish, but God and those who love God, will live forever.

1 Samuel 15:23
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
He also has rejected you from being king."

doesn't that make an understanding of origins more important,
more determinative of a person's relationship with God than anything else?

Why is it that you believe a study of origins is more important than anything else?
The Bible says to study to show yourself approved.
But the real test if for those who actually do the will of God.

Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

o'well, i guess in a scientific age, scientific principles ought to be raised to the level of essential theological truth(actually it is raised above).

Yes of course science should have the same level and the same standard of truth.
That is what it means to be a Christian, to set the standard.
Our standard is truth and our banner is love.

 

[muffler dragon]

I say it with all honesty. Satan -- with the help of his little red-headed, mental-terrorist step-child (Charles Darwin) -- has turned this great nation 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.

How do people who start threads with no less than two fallacies expect to actually be taken seriously?

The only thing I can come up with is that they never participated in debate in school or they have no clue how to converse diplomatically.

 

[muffler dragon]

You forgot to add "liberal commie pinko."

I know what "liberal" and "commie" refer to, but I've never been told what the "pinko" references. Care to help a brother out?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

so the scientific principle of common descent expresses a rebelliousness towards God.

your signature:
Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

It is not a scientific principle. If you think it is then you have allowed yourself to get caught up into their deception.



The data is only a comparison. It is a way to organize things.
The Greeks did that thousands of years ago long before Darwin came along.
Just because some things are more alike than others does not show common descent.

that stills doesn't address the issue that this makes the acceptance or rejection of evolutionary theory THE DETERMINATING principle for who is or is not a Christian.

it is a shame that:

1Jo 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, [even] our faith.
1Jo 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?


isn't a bit more explicit and says that the only thing important in the world to overcome is the theory of evolution. if you can't overcome that particular delusion then you can not be a Christian.

seems to me to be an very strong statement that only YECists can be saved. nothing else is as important as denying evolutionary theory. that really makes evolution important doesn't it?

once you can escape the deception of atheistic evolutionary theory then you might be able to be saved, but escaping this delusion is the most important thing you can do to be saved.


curious. you'd think that something this important would be all over the Scriptures. and that everyone calling themselves Christians who are lead by the Spirit of God would whole heartedly agree with you. oops, they must all be deluded as well as the evolutionary theory accepting pseudochristians.

so you can't accept a scientific theory.
and you can't agree or hang around with those who do.
pretty much leaves your fundamentalist baptist dispensationalist premill types as the only real Christians doesn't it?


I thought you were a christian? Why would you ask me a question like that. God does not deceive people Satan deceives people.

obviously not since only those who deny the theory of evolution can be christians.
everything else is immaterial because believing the theory is all the evidence for satanic delusion that is necessary. cute trick.

2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

 

[Skaloop]

I know what "liberal" and "commie" refer to, but I've never been told what the "pinko" references. Care to help a brother out?

Pinko is another derogatory term for a communist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinko