[_ Old Earth _] Darwinism completely refutes ID

[reznwerks]

"SPIEGEL: Nowhere does evolution become so apparent than in the DNA code. Nevertheless, those who believe in Intelligent Design find the DNA code less problematic than the ideas of Darwin. Why is that?

Dennett: I don't know, because it seems to me that the very best evidence we have for the truth of Darwin's theory is the evidence that arrives every day from bioinformatics, from understanding the DNA-coding. The critics of Darwinism just don't want to confront the fact that molecules, enzymes and proteins lead to thought. Yes, we have a soul, but it's made up of lots of tiny robots."

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/interna ... 19,00.html

 

[Heidi]

"SPIEGEL: Nowhere does evolution become so apparent than in the DNA code. Nevertheless, those who believe in Intelligent Design find the DNA code less problematic than the ideas of Darwin. Why is that?

Dennett: I don't know, because it seems to me that the very best evidence we have for the truth of Darwin's theory is the evidence that arrives every day from bioinformatics, from understanding the DNA-coding. The critics of Darwinism just don't want to confront the fact that molecules, enzymes and proteins lead to thought. Yes, we have a soul, but it's made up of lots of tiny robots."

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/interna ... 19,00.html

Sorry, but DNA coding has just proven that the human race came from one man like the bible says. But scientists refuse to look at the juncture of the Tigris and Euphrates where the bible says man was created. They instead, look in Africa, find the earliest bones in Africa then declare those are the oldest bones on the planet even though they haven't searched most of the planet. This is the kind of deception with which scientists dupe the public and of course, those who cannot think for themselves readily believe them. Sorry, but it's not hard to see through them. ;-)

 

[peace4all]

with all of the archeological digs in the middle east, you would think they would have found some of them bones by now then don't ya? I mean, if what your saying about man starting out on the tigris and euphretes is correct, then you would THINK and have to ASSUME that before humans could get all the way down to south africa, they would get to egypt right? and Idunno, but I am PRETTY SURE that egypt has had alot of archeological digging going on.

Heidi, you seem to think that scientists are purposely avoiding the proof of god. scientists do whatever they can to discover whatever they can. Don't you think that if a scientist found unrefutable proof that God exists, they would become one of the most famous ones EVER?

 

[ArtGuy]

"SPIEGEL: Nowhere does evolution become so apparent than in the DNA code. Nevertheless, those who believe in Intelligent Design find the DNA code less problematic than the ideas of Darwin. Why is that?

Dennett: I don't know, because it seems to me that the very best evidence we have for the truth of Darwin's theory is the evidence that arrives every day from bioinformatics, from understanding the DNA-coding. The critics of Darwinism just don't want to confront the fact that molecules, enzymes and proteins lead to thought. Yes, we have a soul, but it's made up of lots of tiny robots."

You know, if evolutionists don't want us getting our religion into their science, maybe they should keep their science away from our religion. The composition of the human mind speaks nothing, nada, nil, zippo as to the existence or non-existence of a human soul. They're free to decide they don't believe in a spiritual soul, but claiming to have disproven its existence through science is asinine.

 

[MrVersatile48]

In fact, hundreds of PhD/MSc-level scientists, from microbiology to astronomy, have found SOOOOOOOOOOOOO much evidence of Intelligent Design that they reject the atheistic brainwashing of their 'education' & now worship the Almighty Creator 8-)

For comprehensive menus of learned articles, see http://www.discovery.org/csc & http://www.creationism.org


For further evidence, simply walk round with your eyes open: no 2 snowflakes are identical - no 2 grains of sand are either :angel:

NOR ARE ANY 2 SETS OF FINGERPRINTS..IRISES... :roll:

All these things show the handiwork of the Most Brilliant Brain in the Universe: its Almighty Creator :multi:


TRUE SCIENCE IS SOUNDLY BASED ON OBSERVATION

That's why Romans 1:20 tells us that no man has any excuse for ignoring God :o

That's why Romans 12:1-2 show us that the only rational, reasonable response to all the wonderful things God has done for us is to be 100% dedicated & devoted to loving Him wholeheartedly & loving our neighbours as ourselves

Happy New Year, y'all global neighbours in Cyberspace!! :-D

Altogether, you singers out there...

"Every time I hear a new-born baby cry...
or touch a leaf..
or see the sky..
then I know why..
I BELIEVE!!!!!!!" :

God bless!

Ian

 

[ArtGuy]

For further evidence, simply walk round with your eyes open: no 2 snowflakes are identical - no 2 grains of sand are either[/b][/i] :angel:

NOR ARE ANY 2 SETS OF FINGERPRINTS..IRISES... :roll:

All these things show the handiwork of the Most Brilliant Brain in the Universe: its Almighty Creator.

Or else they show the enormous number of possible configurations of tiny molecules into macroscopic shapes. :o

Such fallacious arguments don't much help our position.

If we want to discredit evolution, we must do so based on the merits of the actual theory, not by offering up non-sequitors. ;-)

 

[Wertbag]

How do random patterns show design? Quite the opposite, if something is random and chaotic then it shows a complete lack of thought or design went into it.

 

[reznwerks]

"SPIEGEL: Nowhere does evolution become so apparent than in the DNA code. Nevertheless, those who believe in Intelligent Design find the DNA code less problematic than the ideas of Darwin. Why is that?

Dennett: I don't know, because it seems to me that the very best evidence we have for the truth of Darwin's theory is the evidence that arrives every day from bioinformatics, from understanding the DNA-coding. The critics of Darwinism just don't want to confront the fact that molecules, enzymes and proteins lead to thought. Yes, we have a soul, but it's made up of lots of tiny robots."

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/interna ... 19,00.html

Sorry, but DNA coding has just proven that the human race came from one man like the bible says. But scientists refuse to look at the juncture of the Tigris and Euphrates where the bible says man was created.
I guess you'll just have to go yourself and show everbody.

They instead, look in Africa, find the earliest bones in Africa then declare those are the oldest bones on the planet even though they haven't searched most of the planet.
With all the excavation that goes on in the middle east don't you think it is strange THAT NO BONES EVER TURNED UP?


This is the kind of deception with which scientists dupe the public and of course, those who cannot think for themselves readily believe them. Sorry, but it's not hard to see through them. ;-)
What we have here is not deception but paranoia?

 

[reznwerks]

"SPIEGEL: Nowhere does evolution become so apparent than in the DNA code. Nevertheless, those who believe in Intelligent Design find the DNA code less problematic than the ideas of Darwin. Why is that?

Dennett: I don't know, because it seems to me that the very best evidence we have for the truth of Darwin's theory is the evidence that arrives every day from bioinformatics, from understanding the DNA-coding. The critics of Darwinism just don't want to confront the fact that molecules, enzymes and proteins lead to thought. Yes, we have a soul, but it's made up of lots of tiny robots."

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/interna ... 19,00.html

Sorry, but DNA coding has just proven that the human race came from one man like the bible says. But scientists refuse to look at the juncture of the Tigris and Euphrates where the bible says man was created.
I guess you'll just have to go yourself and show everbody.

They instead, look in Africa, find the earliest bones in Africa then declare those are the oldest bones on the planet even though they haven't searched most of the planet.
With all the excavation that goes on in the middle east don't you think it is strange THAT NO BONES EVER TURNED UP?


This is the kind of deception with which scientists dupe the public and of course, those who cannot think for themselves readily believe them. Sorry, but it's not hard to see through them. ;-)
What we have here is not deception but paranoia?

 

[protos]

"SPIEGEL: Nowhere does evolution become so apparent than in the DNA code. Nevertheless, those who believe in Intelligent Design find the DNA code less problematic than the ideas of Darwin. Why is that?

Dennett: I don't know, because it seems to me that the very best evidence we have for the truth of Darwin's theory is the evidence that arrives every day from bioinformatics, from understanding the DNA-coding. The critics of Darwinism just don't want to confront the fact that molecules, enzymes and proteins lead to thought. Yes, we have a soul, but it's made up of lots of tiny robots."

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/interna ... 19,00.html

Yes, anybody can make a claim but when that claim fails to withstand the light of modern science it is discarded. This doesn't seem to be the case for the hypothesis of evolution. After all this DNA must have been formed by natural causes yet the only natural causes that do something to this DNA (genetic mutations) do not produce more of it, they just unscramble it.

Anybody who has a solid understanding of the fundamental principles of genetics knows it is one of the many philosophical idiotisms invented by the ancient Greeks.

All of you who believe in this theory, as I did, don't know how to think for yourselves. Yes there is a difference between questioning something and assuming the opposite, but I bet none of you have even done that, especially you reznwerks because you actually are a robot instead of thinking for yourself as God gave us free will and reason.

No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.

-Pierre-Paul Grasse, evolutionist

 

[Oran_Taran]

After all this DNA must have been formed by natural causes yet the only natural causes that do something to this DNA (genetic mutations) do not produce more of it, they just unscramble it.

Well, there IS the "RNA world" hypothesis. Self-replicating RNA and other nucleic acids HAVE been made in the lab, simulating the conditions of early earth, without cheating or anything (using pre-existing RNA or things like that). And all RNA is is just DNA with one oxygen in it.

Anybody who has a solid understanding of the fundamental principles of genetics knows it is one of the many philosophical idiotisms invented by the ancient Greeks.

HUH? the ancient greeks made many philosophical idiotisms about DNA? lol.

No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.

-Pierre-Paul Grasse, evolutionist

... that guy CAN'T accept evolution.
and it has been proven that there are good mutations, and that they are selected for, therefore they do produce evolution.
One example is those bacteria that digest nylon, an ARTIFICIAL fiber, and there are many other examples.

 

[MrVersatile48]

CU @ Chester Zoo, next Sat 1 pm?

http://www.chesterzoo.org.uk

 

[Heidi]

Darwin had delusions of grandeur thinking he knew better than God how the world works. He also had a mental breadown which should show any rational person that he can't be trusted. But again, some people will believe any delusional person to keep from acknowledging the existence of God. :evil:

 

[peace4all]

Darwin had delusions of grandeur thinking he knew better than God how the world works. He also had a mental breadown which should show any rational person that he can't be trusted. But again, some people will believe any delusional person to keep from acknowledging the existence of God. :evil:

We also call people delusional that witness waters seperated, bread multiplied, and blind people magically healed, but...

 

[MrVersatile48]

"Don't be deceived: God is not mocked - you reap what you sow" - Galatians 6:7

More @ the fate of those who mock & scoff @ God in 2 Tim 3

Just time to post 1/2 useful links for open-minded readers:-

http://www.discovery.org/csc/essentialReadings.php

 

[PDoug]

The following is from the article referenced in the first post of this thread:

Dennett: Maybe in Homo Habilus, the handyman, who began making stone tools some 2 million years ago. They had a sense of being more wonderful that their artifacts. So the idea of a creator that is more wonderful than the things he creates is, I think, a very deeply intuitive idea. It is exactly this idea that promoters of Intelligent Design speak to when they ask, 'did you ever see a building that didn't have a maker, did you ever see a painting that didn't have a painter.' That perfectly captures this deeply intuitive idea that you never get design for free.

SPIEGEL: An ancient theological argument...

Dennett: ... which Darwin completely impugns with his theory of natural selection. And he shows, hell no, not only can you get design from un-designed things, you can even get the evolution of designers from that un-design. You end up with authors and poets and artists and engineers and other designers of things, other creators -- very recent fruits of the tree of life. And it challenges people's sense that life has meaning.

Can someone explain what is the basis for Dennett's assertion? If Darwin is correct, shouldn't we see the principle of the less intelligent creating the more intelligent, the inanimate creating the animate, etc., in at least a fairly plain way around us? Instead we see massive amounts of examples of intelligent design principles. We see people making cars, airplanes, pizzas, etc. We see birds and other animals making nests. We see animals fashioning traps. But we have yet to see credible evidence of order rising out of disorder without an intelligent agent making it happen. All we have seen is a hypothesis (given the unwarrented name 'theory') that is based on the massive extrapolation of a phenomenon seen in highly limited situations.

 

[Oran_Taran]

Did you ever see a snowflake? that doesn't have a designer.
Did you ever see the grand canyon? no designer.
Ever see those perfectly round stones in rivers or whatever? no designer.
There are plenty of them. Not to mention organisms themselves, which start out as single cells and then without anyone shaping them, molding them, changing them, they become trillions of cells, able to run, dive, fly, etc.

 

[PDoug]

Did you ever see a snowflake? that doesn't have a designer.
Did you ever see the grand canyon? no designer.
Ever see those perfectly round stones in rivers or whatever? no designer.
There are plenty of them. Not to mention organisms themselves, which start out as single cells and then without anyone shaping them, molding them, changing them, they become trillions of cells, able to run, dive, fly, etc.

That is not quite what I asked. Can you site instances where something less sophisticated creates something more sophisticated, or something inanimate creates something that is animate. Also an organism growing is not what I had in mind: I'm talking about a discrete organism giving rise to another, substantially more sophisticated discrete organism.

 

[Oran_Taran]

That is not quite what I asked. Can you site instances where something less sophisticated creates something more sophisticated, or something inanimate creates something that is animate. Also an organism growing is not what I had in mind: I'm talking about a discrete organism giving rise to another, substantially more sophisticated discrete organism.

Umm... evolution.
Also, a random... thing of H2O molecules (less "sophisticated") in a water droplet or whatever gives rise to a much more "sophisticated" snowflake.

a bunch of hot and cool winds, water, moisture, etc. (less "sophisticated" gives rise to more "sophisticated" hurricane, or tornadoes, or water spouts (which are basically tornadoes, I know), etc.

what exactly is the point of asking that? if I give you an example, you'll just say god made it possible or something.... but actually they all work according to physics, and so do all the chemicals that gave rise to all the organisms on earth... which still all work according to physics.

 

[PDoug]

Umm... evolution.
Also, a random... thing of H2O molecules (less "sophisticated") in a water droplet or whatever gives rise to a much more "sophisticated" snowflake.

a bunch of hot and cool winds, water, moisture, etc. (less "sophisticated" gives rise to more "sophisticated" hurricane, or tornadoes, or water spouts (which are basically tornadoes, I know), etc.

what exactly is the point of asking that? if I give you an example, you'll just say god made it possible or something.... but actually they all work according to physics, and so do all the chemicals that gave rise to all the organisms on earth... which still all work according to physics.

Sorry about the lack of clarity. I'm not talking about a substance growing into another substance: I'm talking about one discrete substance producing another discrete, significantly more sophisticated substance.