Do it without magic.

[Davian]

Is not the existence of live itself, in the very seconds that it was first here, "magic"? No matter how you look at it. Evolution or creation, there has to be a point in time where there was no life and then in an instant, there was life.

No matter how you slice it, that moment is "magic" or "supernatural".

This is why evolutionists don't touch that part. They shy away, or simply state "we don't deal with how it started". They just want to tell us what happened after that first glimmer of life.

All of which is just the best guess based on some "educated" "accredited" intellectuals who will chastise anyone who goes against the accepted "theory".

A time is coming, soon, where things are going to take place that will deem "mutation" and "natural selection" a blib of ignorance and embarrassment to men and women of the "educated elite".

As far as magic and supernatural..... you ain't seen nothing yet. Science will be in awe of the events that are about to unfold. Science will be at a loss to explain it. All the gauges will be sprung, the calibrated instruments will have to be looked at with parameters never seen for centuries.

"Educated", men and women of "respected" levels of intellect will stand, mouth open in awe of observed events that cannot be covered up, hidden, explained away with some baffle gab, hyperbola of the blight of "empirical science".

"The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism - G.R. Morton


In recent reading, Dembski and other ID proponents make the claim that evolution (or major supporting concepts for it) is increasingly being abandoned by scientists, or is about to fall. This claim has many forms and has been made for over 185 years. This is a compilation of the claims over time. The purpose of this compilation is two-fold. First, it is to show that the claim has been made for a long, long time. Secondly, it is to show that entire careers have passed without seeing any of this movement away from evolution. Third, it is to show that the creationists are merely making these statements for the purpose of keeping hope alive that they are making progress towards their goal. In point of fact, no such progress is being made as anyone who has watched this area for the last 50 years can testify. The claim is false as history and present-day events show, yet that doesn't stop anyone wanting to sell books from making that claim. Now for the claims in chronological order."

Demise of Evolution?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I'm differentiating between natural selection and mutation. There's only one creative impetus in certain views of evolution....mutation....which is driven by only random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms and which began the creation of all life we observe today by acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago.

As a theist, what's your view on mutations being random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless, eventually producing humanity?

there you go again, separating natural selection and mutation. Mutations by themselves would be helpless to evolve species. Mutations coupled with natural selection brought us the variety of life, including our own species, we know here on earth.

 

[Strathos]

Ya ... that's why we have about eight different theories as to how we got our moon.

Which we test and narrow down until we get the right one.

And scientists are so perfect that they never misinterpret their findings. They also never bend to political pressure or peer pressure. Just like politicians, they are only human.

Which is why science is a self-correct and improving process.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which we test and narrow down until we get the right one.

You'd better hurry and get the right one then; before even more show up.

 

[justlookinla]

there you go again, separating natural selection and mutation. Mutations by themselves would be helpless to evolve species. Mutations coupled with natural selection brought us the variety of life, including our own species, we know here on earth.

I'm identifying the creative impetus of Darwinist creationism...mutation. Mutation is the 'power' which creates new life forms, not natural selection.

Again, as a theist, what's your view on mutations being random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless, eventually producing humanity?

 

[Davian]

You'd better hurry and get the right one then; before even more show up.

Will this affect the price of milk at the market?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Check your post. You did not say different individuals. You said different organisms.

Every organism is a different individual. Even twins....

Bingo. That's what I've been saying.

Just an example of the double speak, goal post moving, definition twisting, of evolutionists.

No, I've been consistent from the beginning. I explained how sexual reproduction results in the creation of a new, unique organism, a new life form.

I have said that from the beginning and am still saying it now.

The argument that is being presented in the contrary is that an individual is not a new organism, is not a new life form.

Your theory is based on no more than extrapolation and assumption. The fossil record is static. Natural selection would take us from order to disorder. There is no need to have it in science classes any more than creation. We can teach what is "now" without trying to force into students minds what went on long before history.

Fortunately in most civilized nations we continue to teach science and history in classrooms in spite of the growing dissent. And, God willing, that won't change in the near future simply because the gullible are taken in by the unscrupulous purveyors of pseudoscientific quackery.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Zosimus]

No, it's to draw contrast. They are synonymous. If a supernatural event was used in the creation of life then how is science seriously supposed to test the properties of that event and make sense of it? Since the supernatural and miracles by definition defy the laws of reality and science can only test what is real then clearly it has nothing to say on either (the supernatural or miracles). Correct?

Let me see whether I understand your argument.

You have a method called "scientific empiricism," which you use to investigate the world around you.

You are fully aware that this method cannot investigate most affirmative claims. It is limited only to those things that can be directly and repeatedly observed.

Therefore, rather than admit that the method has flaws and limitations, you choose to ridicule those who make claims that your method is incapable of handling.

Is that the argument in a nutshell?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I'm identifying the creative impetus of Darwinist creationism...mutation. Mutation is the 'power' which creates new life forms, not natural selection.

Again, as a theist, what's your view on mutations being random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless, eventually producing humanity?

There you go again, separating mutation and natural selection from being equal and necessary partners in the sweep of evolution, resulting in the variety of life we now observe including our own.

Mutations cannot accumulate, one beneficial after another, without selection winnowing out the harmful.

All, of course, in the plan of God.

 

[justlookinla]

There you go again, separating mutation and natural selection from being equal and necessary partners in the sweep of evolution, resulting in the variety of life we now observe including our own.

Mutations cannot accumulate, one beneficial after another, without selection winnowing out the harmful.

All, of course, in the plan of God.

You're in opposition to random/chance mutation then?

 

[SteveB28]

This is true, however, if you had a group of animals that got stranded on an island. In order for them to escape their one and only predator they had to jump a high obstacle. All the non jumpers would be eaten. You would end up with a populace that had a majority of high jumping animals. Any that didn't get the trait would be eaten.

You are crudely describing the process of natural selection. (To add, what you are more specifically describing is artificial selection, with the inclusion of that fence. The process you describe is not dissimilar to that used by man to arrive at the many breeds of dog we see today.)

Now, cut a hole in the fence that allows all these prey to go through but the predator still cannot. In a few years you will have just as many non jumpers as in the past before the fence.

How do you make that claim? What evidence do you have that demands that, when an evolutionary 'barrier' is removed that the process will reverse itself?

By the way, have you noticed the poor logic in your analogy? If the 'high jumpers' have already been successful in escaping their predators by jumping the fence, why would they then need to escape through a hole in that fence?!

I have an ageing brain, so perhaps you can explain to me why a prey animal has to escape from his predator twice, in different manners each time?

(How do I get one of those head-slapping cartoons into my screed?)

 

[JacksBratt]

How do you make that claim? What evidence do you have that demands that, when an evolutionary 'barrier' is removed that the process will reverse itself?

A friend of mine, non-christian, noted one day that there are many young ladies with absolutely no hips. Slim women, pushing baby carriages. He stated that this would never happen before the implementation of the Cesarian section. These women, and perhaps their child, would, in many cases, died in the child birth process. He surmised that this trait has re-emerged due to the removal of a selective process that allowed women with excellent child bearing bodies to be the ones that survived. The high jumpers, if you will. Now, the hole in the fence is the Cesarian section which allows women with less than optimal bodies for child bearing, to survive the process. The gene didn't disappear, it was kept at a low percentage due to your proposed "natural selection"

By the way, have you noticed the poor logic in your analogy? If the 'high jumpers' have already been successful in escaping their predators by jumping the fence, why would they then need to escape through a hole in that fence?!

"poor logic"? In nature, even the fastest, strongest, smartest in a herd will always take the easiest route that takes the least effort and is the most efficient use of energy. They will, crawl, hide, sneak, crawl through a hole, long before jumping a high fence.
Poor logic....indeed.... smart animals live longer.

I have an ageing brain, so perhaps you can explain to me why a prey animal has to escape from his predator twice, in different manners each time?

Why not, for argument sake, say that the only food and water was on the same side as the predator......??? And, the only safety was on the other side of the fence.

(How do I get one of those head-slapping cartoons into my screed?)

Like this