Darwinism versus Creation

[Jester]

Winston,
This guy's skeptical approach reminded me of you.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html

[Winston]

Why does he remind you of me?

[fschmidt]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html

I like Fred, but here he really screwed up. First of all, Darwin said nothing about the origin of life, only how one species changes into another. I can answer all of Fred's questions and so could Fred if he bothered to look into it. Why those he talked to refused to answer him? Either they were obnoxious liberals or they were annoyed at Fred's laziness, I don't know which.

[Jester]

Why does he remind you of me?

Looking at facts, fresh, without prejudice.

[Jester]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html

I like Fred, but here he really screwed up. First of all, Darwin said nothing about the origin of life, only how one species changes into another. I can answer all of Fred's questions and so could Fred if he bothered to look into it. Why those he talked to refused to answer him? Either they were obnoxious liberals or they were annoyed at Fred's laziness, I don't know which.

Feel free.

I must say I did find your point about the limited scope of Darwin's Theory interesting.....

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

....nevertheless it seems to me the proverbial "distinction without a difference".

Why? Because it's like quibbling about what part of modern Evolutionism is Darwin's, is like quibbling about what part of twentieth-century Communist gang-rape, mass murder and brainwashing was the fault of Marx, Engels, Gramsci or Lenin. I could give a f**k.

Darwin's modern fans believe that random molecules spontaneously (not miraculously - "spontaneously" LOL) merged in seawater, and kept developing, for no reason except lack of plankton to eat... until finally human babies were born.

This is obviously, patently bullshit. No ancient Greek or Indian would have believed it. It violates not only the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but observed nature, and common sense.

Darwinism was taken up by the secularist, imperialist British upper class because it justified ruthlessness, self-aggrandizement, and conquest. It was a self-justifying belief system for the Masonic-riddled upper class - a belief system that replaced the vacuum left by the demise of active, masculine Christianity.

Organisms do not grow more complex in succeeding generations. That is not a theory. It is a fact.

Humans can deny God. An ostrich can bury its head in the sand. Neither action affects others.

[jamesbond]

Darwin's modern fans believe that random molecules spontaneously (not miraculously - "spontaneously" LOL) merged in seawater, and kept developing, for no reason except lack of plankton to eat... until finally human babies were born.

This is obviously, patently bullshit. No ancient Greek or Indian would have believed it. It violates not only the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but observed nature, and common sense.

Darwinism was taken up by the secularist, imperialist British upper class because it justified ruthlessness, self-aggrandizement, and conquest. It was a self-justifying belief system for the Masonic-riddled upper class - a belief system that replaced the vacuum left by the demise of active, masculine Christianity.

Organisms do not grow more complex in succeeding generations. That is not a theory. It is a fact.

Humans can deny God. An ostrich can bury its head in the sand. Neither action affects others.

Yes, there are more holes in the theory of evolution than there is an American woman's head! Even scientists who believe in the theory of evolution have admitted that there are holes in it and it does not completely explain how life began.

[Winston]

The main problem with macroevolution is that there are no transitional species or fossils found. For example, there is no species that's part reptile and part bird. And for humans, there are no transitional species with part Neanderthal man and part human, because human bones have never been found in Neanderthals.

There's no way around this. For one species to become another, there has to be transitions over millions of years. It can't happen overnight. They've come up empty on this.

This guy Lloyd Pye has the best theory that fits the data, called Intervention Theory:

http://www.lloydpye.com

[fschmidt]

Darwin's modern fans believe that random molecules spontaneously (not miraculously - "spontaneously" LOL) merged in seawater, and kept developing, for no reason except lack of plankton to eat... until finally human babies were born.

This is obviously, patently bullshit. No ancient Greek or Indian would have believed it. It violates not only the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but observed nature, and common sense.

The scientific theories about the origin of life don't violate anything that I know of, and also have nothing to do with evolution. There is no problem with the Second Law of Thermodynamics because we have a constant input of energy from the sun. I can't comment much on the origin of life since I haven't studied that issue, but I see no reason why life couldn't have started spontaneously from certain chemical patterns.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution including fossils and the results of breeding. Genetics fully explains the mechanism of evolution.

Darwinism was taken up by the secularist, imperialist British upper class because it justified ruthlessness, self-aggrandizement, and conquest. It was a self-justifying belief system for the Masonic-riddled upper class - a belief system that replaced the vacuum left by the demise of active, masculine Christianity.

The irony is that Darwin himself was strongly against all these things. It seems that every good idea has a tendency to be misused, from Darwinism to Jesus's teachings. In fact, a real understanding of evolution much more supports active, masculine Christianity than it does parasitic upper class behavior.

Organisms do not grow more complex in succeeding generations. That is not a theory. It is a fact.

Sure they can. We don't see this much in animals where the time scale is long, but we certainly see it in the development viruses that do grow more complex.

Humans can deny God. An ostrich can bury its head in the sand. Neither action affects others.

God and evolution are independent concepts. There is no conflict between the two. The only connection that I have found is that evolution proves that belief in God is required for fallen cultures to recover. I explain this here:

http://www.mikraite.org/Human-Evolution-tp4695955.html

[Jester]

The main problem with macroevolution is that there are no transitional species or fossils found. For example, there is no species that's part reptile and part bird. And for humans, there are no transitional species with part Neanderthal man and part human, because human bones have never been found in Neanderthals.

There's no way around this. For one species to become another, there has to be transitions over millions of years. It can't happen overnight. They've come up empty on this.

This guy Lloyd Pye has the best theory that fits the data, called Intervention Theory:

http://www.lloydpye.com

The name of the theory sounds reasonable. That is the point. Intervention by an outside, intelligent, benevolent, detail-minded force is a necessary factor.

[Jester]

Darwin's modern fans believe that random molecules spontaneously (not miraculously - "spontaneously" LOL) merged in seawater, and kept developing, for no reason except lack of plankton to eat... until finally human babies were born.

This is obviously, patently bullshit. No ancient Greek or Indian would have believed it. It violates not only the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but observed nature, and common sense.

The scientific theories about the origin of life don't violate anything that I know of, and also have nothing to do with evolution. There is no problem with the Second Law of Thermodynamics because we have a constant input of energy from the sun. I can't comment much on the origin of life since I haven't studied that issue, but I see no reason why life couldn't have started spontaneously from certain chemical patterns.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution including fossils and the results of breeding. Genetics fully explains the mechanism of evolution.

Darwinism was taken up by the secularist, imperialist British upper class because it justified ruthlessness, self-aggrandizement, and conquest. It was a self-justifying belief system for the Masonic-riddled upper class - a belief system that replaced the vacuum left by the demise of active, masculine Christianity.

The irony is that Darwin himself was strongly against all these things. It seems that every good idea has a tendency to be misused, from Darwinism to Jesus's teachings. In fact, a real understanding of evolution much more supports active, masculine Christianity than it does parasitic upper class behavior.

Organisms do not grow more complex in succeeding generations. That is not a theory. It is a fact.

Sure they can. We don't see this much in animals where the time scale is long, but we certainly see it in the development viruses that do grow more complex.

Humans can deny God. An ostrich can bury its head in the sand. Neither action affects others.

God and evolution are independent concepts. There is no conflict between the two. The only connection that I have found is that evolution proves that belief in God is required for fallen cultures to recover. I explain this here:

http://www.mikraite.org/Human-Evolution-tp4695955.html

Scanned your article, interesting stuff.

Will try to read it more in depth tomorrow.

Meanwhile.... while th --e sun does indeed add energy to Earth, the universe as a whole remains a closed system. Hence no Creator, no Creation/Evolution. Yes?

[fschmidt]

Meanwhile.... while th --e sun does indeed add energy to Earth, the universe as a whole remains a closed system. Hence no Creator, no Creation/Evolution. Yes?

There must be a beginning with a large thermodynamic imbalance to drive the universe until its heat death. How that beginning happened doesn't matter. Could be God, could be matter coming from another dimension as string theory suggests. Any theory one chooses can only be chosen on faith since this is the kind of thing that can't be proved. Or one can just duck the question which is my choice.

[Jester]

Meanwhile.... while th --e sun does indeed add energy to Earth, the universe as a whole remains a closed system. Hence no Creator, no Creation/Evolution. Yes?

There must be a beginning with a large thermodynamic imbalance to drive the universe until its heat death. How that beginning happened doesn't matter. Could be God, could be matter coming from another dimension as string theory suggests. Any theory one chooses can only be chosen on faith since this is the kind of thing that can't be proved. Or one can just duck the question which is my choice.

+1 for honesty.

[publicduende]

For how much I try to keep a rational, engineering mind, I cannot but think that the entire universe has a blueprint, a grand architecture that is respected at both the macroscopic at the microscopic levels. There is a benevolent universal force that operates to create diversity, then life, hence conscience, which has the power to evolve over time. An evolved conscience is not one that asserts her superiority and individuality, but one whose primary desire is to recover its sense of Unity, reconnect and lose herself into the "boundless Light and Love" which is what all sacred texts and many esoteric poets like Dante Alighieri or John Milton talked about.

Life forms may evolve "naturally" over a very long period of time, but always guided by a general blueprint of cosmic evolution. This is true from microbes to planets. Intervention has very probably shaped intelligent life on Earth, and it's much easier for me as well to believe that the human race was genetically engineered by an extraterrestrial race, perhaps as a local labour force, perhaps as an experiment. One then has to wonder: who created this superior race, who created their creators, and so on. By backward inference, it's easy to come to the conclusion that all esoteric knowledge has taught us for millennia. That inferior consciences are borne out of superior ones, in such a way that they are disconnected but always retain the potential to reconnect to their Creator.

[Ginger]

[Billy]

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoCreationScientists.html

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/04 ... eason.html