The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Genghiz Cohen

I don't get why you are posting these. I look at them and think,


Didn't really like that movie now that I think about it.

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I don't get why you are posting these. I look at them and think,


Didn't really like that movie now that I think about it.

... except that it isn't actually my opinion ... it is the opinion of a leading Evolutionist!!!!:eek::):D

... and he is saying that Evolutionism is a religion ... do you agree with him?

... he does seem to have a valid point!!!!

ColmDawson

J C wrote: »

... except that it isn't actually my opinion ... it is the opinion of a leading Evolutionist!!!!:eek::):D

... and he is saying that Evolutionism is a religion ... do you agree with him?

Yes, all hail lord Darwin.

Back in a while, I'm off to worship at my local gravityism shrine.

J C

ColmDawson wrote: »

Yes, all hail lord Darwin.

Back in a while, I'm off to worship at my local gravityism shrine.

... said in jest ... meant in earnest???

J C

... some more very insightful views from Dr Michael Ruse Philosopher of (Evolutionary) Biology and Editor of the Cambridge University Press Series in the Philosophy of Biology


This is not just a fight about dinosaurs or gaps in the fossil record, this is a fight about different worldviews. Boston Globe May 1 2005 †

In the quote above, Dr Ruse confirms that the Evolution-Creation debate is a clash of worldviews ...
... and in the quotes below he confirms that The Evolutionist Worldview is on very shaky scientific ground ... and this is compounded by the fact that the material being 'churned out' by Evolutionists is (in his words) second rate and "downright awful".

The lack of any evidence being provided on this thread in support of 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution ... and the denial and ignoring of the many devastating points and quotes that I have made, means that the contributions of the Evolutionists on this thread could also be described as 'downright awful' as well.
Of course, the reason why no substantive challenge to my points is forthcoming is due to the fact that 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution couldn't and didn't occur!!!!
... you guys are obviously very intelligent people with many years of intensive study into Evolution behind you ...
... and then there is 'little old me' ... who is single handedly 'beating the pants off' every one of the 300 or so Evolutionists who have given us the best that Evoltionary Theory can currently offer!!!!

The reason I am winning and you are losing on every point, is because I speak the truth ... and you are trying to claim that things that could never happen ... did happen!!!

For example, the following quote confirms that Darwin didn't even discuss the origin of life in his famous 'Origins of Species' book that Evolutionists place so much faith in.
All he actually discussed was the production of different varieties within Created Kinds such as domesic animals and pigeons and their possible speciation ... which Creation Scientists accept as an established fact ... and indeed an explanation for the mass speciation which occurrred after the animals left Noah's Ark following the Flood!!!

Charles Darwin's discussion of the problem in the Origin of Species always puts me in mind of Sherlock Holmes's response in the story "Silver Blaze." Upon being asked if there were any points of note, he replied: "The dog that barked in the night." But the dog didn't bark in the night." "Precisely!" "But Darwin didn't discuss the Origin of life in the Origin of Species." "Precisely!" He knew that he had no answer and that getting into a discussion of the topic would lead only to tears, so he stayed away from it altogether.

However, that is cheating a little -- certainly it would be today. Darwinism and Its Discontents (2006) p.52-3 †

Whatever may be the case, it is not that the atheists are having a field day because of the brilliance and novelty of their thinking. Frankly -- and I speak here as a nonbeliever myself, pretty atheistic about Christianity and skeptical about all theological claims -- the material being churned out is second rate. And that is a euphemism for "downright awful." ISIS December 2007 p.815
... the only reason that the Evolutionists have gotten away with this up to now, is because the media are largely unquestioning in their reproduction of every dubious claim of Evolution, teachers in American Public Schools are forced by law to teach it and they will be sacked if they dare to question any of its ridiculous claims ... and many Christians just go along with Evolution ... because it seems to be the 'Politically Correct' thing to do so!!!:eek::):D

Morbert

J C wrote: »

Dr Ruse is a Philosopher of (Evolutionary) Biology and he is a Fellow of both the Royal Society of Canada and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
He regularly debates with ID proponents and he was a key witness for the plaintiff in the 1981 test case (McLean v. Arkansas) of the state law permitting the teaching of Creation Science in the Arkansas school system.

Firstly, it has been noted that you have dropped the topic of "spontaneous evolution". From this I can conclude that you now accept that the phrase is inappropriate.

... he is one of you guys!!!!:)

... but he much more open-minded!!!!!!:D

... and that is why his quotes are so devastating!!!:eek:

Yeah, especially the following quote found on his website (albeit not his):

"Nothing makes sense except in the light of evolution."

It is good to see that you acknowledge that even the most open minded person will confidently accept that evolution is true.

Also, your quotes are about the relationship between evolution and Christianity, not evolution itself. Dr. Ruse believes you can fully accept the scientific theory and facts of evolution, and still accept Christianity. So you've shot yourself in the foot there.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

Firstly, it has been noted that you have dropped the topic of "spontaneous evolution". From this I can conclude that you now accept that the phrase is inappropriate.

Spontaneous Evolution is a quite appropriate term for it .. the fundamental basis of Materialistic Evolution is the supposed supply of variety by spontaneous mutation upon which NS then supposedly acts ...
... even though the NS component can be considered to be 'directed' by environmental factors it is dependent on spontaneous mutation ... and because the mutation component is spontaneous this makes the whole Materialistic Evolution concept spontaneous !!!

Morbert wrote: »

Yeah, especially the following quote found on his website (albeit not his):

"Nothing makes sense except in the light of evolution."

It is good to see that you acknowledge that even the most open minded person will confidently accept that evolution is true.

Also, your quotes are about the relationship between evolution and Christianity, not evolution itself. Dr. Ruse believes you can fully accept the scientific theory and facts of evolution, and still accept Christianity. So you've shot yourself in the foot there.

... I don't agree with everything he says ... he is an Evolutionist, after all ... and I am a Creationist!!!!

However, he does make pretty strident criticisms of Evolution and Evolutionism ... and the fact that he admits that Evolutionism is a form of Secular Religion means that the 'separation of faith and state' should stop it being taught in science class (unless Creation Science is given equal time) ... or else Evolutionism should only be taught in religion classes instead!!!!

Of course, the Atheists don't look for a separation of (their) faith from the state ... they actually campaign vigorously for its protection by the state ... and the rejection of all other faiths by the state ... and so far, the Atheists are 'having a field day'... with their 'origins explanation' (and nobody elses) being taught with full legal protection, in science classes throughout the World!!!

... here we have a situation where Christians are being taxed to pay for the enforsed indoctrination of their children with an Atheistic Worldview that is fundametally opposed to their worldview ... while other Christians look on with full approval!!!
... and if the parents are scientists and they reveal that they are Creationists, they run the risk of being sacked from their jobs ... and if their children reveal they are Creationists, they run the risk of being expelled from their schools ...

.. its great craic, I'm sure, if you can get away with it ... and so far, the Atheists seem to have done so!!!!

Morbert

J C wrote: »

because the mutation component is spontaneous this makes the whole Materialistic Evolution concept spontaneous !!!

That makes no sense. Because a component of something is spontaneous, the entire thing is spontaneous? The magnitude of a component of the vector v = 3i + 2j + 0k is 0 therefore the magnitude of the vector is 0? Obviously not. You are clearly being contrived.

The non-random selection of random mutations is just as important to evolutionary biology as the generation of the random mutations. If you leave it out, then you are not representing the "whole concept". (And as I mentioned before, even these mutations are not entirely random, as they are always very similar to the previous copy, allowing for non-random inheritance.)

[edit]-For anyone wondering why I have not responded to the second half of J Cs post, I informed him last time that it is not productive to move onto a new topic until the current one is resolved.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

None of those.

This is not a bacterial colony, which seems to be what you are suggesting, because the cells all live within a primitive skin derived from the cell wall of the original cell and replicate as a asexual multicelluar organism. A bacterial colony is simply bacteria that clump together, which this is not.

It is a new organism but I don't see anywhere that says the individual cells would not survive if forcibly removed from the organism. I might be wrong about this, feel free to read the paper yourself. They won't naturally do this as again they all now live inside this skin, and because of this the organism reproduces in multicellular fashion. But if the could theoretically be surgically removed by the scientists, though I don't see them attempting this in the research (why would they it is some what irrelevant to how this organism would operate in the wild) This isn't surprising, the multicellular structure appeared after only a few hundred generations, why would the cells lose their ability to function independently in such a short time?

What would be the most likely first thing to do is the structure of the cell walls of the individual cells as they no longer need such strong walls as they are encased in the skin. But evolution won't do this until a mutation comes along that provides advantage to reducing the strength of the individual walls (of which there are many).

The 1998 paper by the scientist discussion the total of his studies in this area since the initial discovery in 1983 is found here

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q239365007h43465/fulltext.pdf

It appears the article is available only by subscription.

But my investigations have led to this creationist article that I think is relevant:
Mediated Design
by Todd Charles Wood, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/article/mediated-design/

The principle appears the same: complex traits arise from original design capability in the organism. The organism remains the same basic organism.

I'm out of my depth in discussing the colonisation issue, but are you saying this colonisation in not the same as bacterial colonisation? Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade.

_________________________________________________________________
1 John 5:12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Not at all.

It was no more spontaneous than leaving ice in the sun causes it to "spontaneously" melt. The chemical reactions in life follow standard chemical laws and happen due to heat from the Sun and the Earth.

Sure, everything that happens can be broken down to cause and effect. My 'spontaneous' shout of acclaim at some great performance is the result of the thoughts in my head causing my brain to order certain muscles to respond in a specific manner.

But what is meant by spontaneous in the evolution context? So many variables interacting that the outcome cannot be predicted - the outcome determined by the throw of a multitude of die.

_________________________________________________________________
1 John 4:5 They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. 6 We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

That makes no sense. Because a component of something is spontaneous, the entire thing is spontaneous? The magnitude of a component of the vector v = 3i + 2j + 0k is 0 therefore the magnitude of the vector is 0? Obviously not. You are clearly being contrived.

The non-random selection of random mutations is just as important to evolutionary biology as the generation of the random mutations. If you leave it out, then you are not representing the "whole concept". (And as I mentioned before, even these mutations are not entirely random, as they are always very similar to the previous copy, allowing for non-random inheritance.)

... the problem is that the non-spontaneous element (Natural Selection) is the dependent element ... and this makes the whole Materialistic Evolution process spontaneous.
... non-functional biochemical permutations are effectively infinite while the functional ones are very limited ... and this fact means that any selection system (like NS) would be swamped by non-functional permutations produced by any non-directed (spontaneous) process like mutagenesis ... and it is therefore completely incapable of generating any CSI, and therefore Materialistic Evolution doesn't even begin to explain the production of the vast quantities of aditional Complex Specified Genetic Information that exists between 'Pondkind and Mankind'!!!

StealthRolex

Science explores and tells us how, theology explores why

Evolution tells us how life developed, theology tell us why. Evolution does not tell us how life started.

The Big Bang theory tells us how the Universe evolved, theology tell us why. The big bang theory does not tell us how the universe started.

Is there not room enough for those who want to know how and those who want to know why?

what is wrong with accepting evolution and the big bang as divine methods?

ColmDawson

StealthRolex wrote: »

Science explores and tells us how, theology explores why

Evolution tells us how life developed, theology tell us why. Evolution does not tell us how life started.

The Big Bang theory tells us how the Universe evolved, theology tell us why. The big bang theory does not tell us how the universe started.

Is there not room enough for those who want to know how and those who want to know why?

what is wrong with accepting evolution and the big bang as divine methods?

All of this assumes that there is a reason or universal purpose for us to be here. I don't think there is, and that doesn't bother me, so to me the value of theology is limited.

J C

StealthRolex wrote: »

Science explores and tells us how, theology explores why

Evolution tells us how life developed, theology tell us why. Evolution does not tell us how life started.

The Big Bang theory tells us how the Universe evolved, theology tell us why. The big bang theory does not tell us how the universe started.

Is there not room enough for those who want to know how and those who want to know why?

what is wrong with accepting evolution and the big bang as divine methods?

... you are making the classic mistake of Theisitic Evolutionism that has produced several generations, (at this stage) of pseudo-Materialists within some Christian Churches ...
... and this has lead directly to the large scale apostacy that is evident within many of the so-called 'mainstream' (evolution-endorsing) Churches today.

If you accept that the 'how' of the production of the Universe and all life is explained by Evolutionist 'science' ... with its a priori commitment to only Materialistic 'Origins' Explanations (even when these explanations are patent absurdities and impossibilities) ... then the 'why' becomes completely irrelevant and the theological study of a God that either doesn't exist, or if He does exist, had nothing to do with our genesis is indeed a waste of time!!! .
If the Universe and all life had a Materialistic Origin and Man is an evolved Ape, then I agree with the Atheists, that we have no reason, beyond wishful thinking, to believe that God exists ... or if He does, that He has any relevance to our lives ...
... and, if this is true, ColmDawson has correctly pointed out, we wouldn't have "a reason or universal purpose for us to be here"!!!

Of course, because the objective scientific evidence for the 'how' is overwhemingly in favour of a Divine Origin for the Universe and all life, then the 'why' also becomes a very important question ... to which the Christian Faith provides the full answer!!!

God gave us an intelligent mind ... and He reveals Himself to us in His written Word in the Bible ... and in His Spoken Word in all of Creation.

Ge 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 ¶ Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 ¶ Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."
7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 ¶ Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 ¶ Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;
15 "and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.
16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.
17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 ¶ Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens."
21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 ¶ Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 ¶ Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

... except that it isn't actually my opinion ... it is the opinion of a leading Evolutionist!!!!:eek::):D

... and he is saying that Evolutionism is a religion ... do you agree with him?

... he does seem to have a valid point!!!!

Didn't mean to imply that I thought it was your opinion.

No.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... it is the opinion of a leading Evolutionist!!!!

... and he is saying that Evolutionism is a religion ... do you agree with him?

... he does seem to have a valid point!!!!

Genghiz Cohen
No.

Would you care to explain why you think that Evolutionism isn't a form of Secular Religion?

You could start by critiquing the following pertinent quotes from Dr Michael Ruse in relation to the 'religious' aspects of Materialistic Evolutionism:-


It is probably because I do have an intensely religious nature – using this term in a secular sense, as one might apply it to other nonbelievers like Thomas Henry Huxley -- that I was attracted toward evolution. Speaking in an entirely secular manner, I do not believe that people come to evolution by chance. From Herbert Spencer (1892) to Edward O. Wilson (1978), it has functioned as a kind of Weltanschauung, a world picture which gives meaning to life. It is something that acts as a foundation for the big questions which we humans face. Yet, in those early years, this was not apparent to me -- at least, it was not a matter of great interest to me. Zygon March 1994 p.26 †
... Dr Ruse admits that, as a Materialistic Evolutionist, he has an intensely religious and secular nature!!!


Indeed, some might even point to the fact that they themselves have tried to produce an ideologically acceptable evolutionism. I think, for example, of the work of the Marxist biologists Richard Lewontin and Richard Levins. By their own admission, they have openly attempted to put their philosophy in to their science, explicitly endorsing holistic approaches, trying to analyse nature in a hierarchical manner, standing against the 'reductionism' which is the mark of so much of modern science. Evolutionary Naturalism (1995) p. 212
Dr Ruse admits above that Evolutionists have openly incorporated their philosophy ('religious belief') into their science!!!

... and below he goes as far a calling Evolutionism "a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality" ... which sounds like a Secular 'Religion' to me.

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post May 13, 2000 †

Genghiz Cohen

Secular religion is a term used to describe ideas, theories or philosophies which involve no spiritual component, yet possess qualities similar to those of a religion. Such qualities include such things as dogma, a system of indoctrination, the prescription of an absolute code of conduct, an ideologically tailored creation story and end-times narrative, designated enemies, and unquestioning devotion to a higher authority. The secular religion operates in a secular society by filling a role which would be satisfied by the Church, or another religious authority.
-Wikipedia

Evolution is just an explanation of how we came to be in the forms we are in.

People are labeled 'Heretics' as you put it, by going against the scientific method.
It's similar to the Boy Who Cried Wolf, someone proclaims to have a new answer, people look and see it's based in religion driven fantasy then ignore the rest of his work as tainted.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

... the problem is that the non-spontaneous element (Natural Selection) is the dependent element ... and this makes the whole Materialistic Evolution process spontaneous.

Firstly, evolution depends on NS just as much as mutations. If you don't have NS promoting specific mutations, then you would never get anywhere, as the "non-functional biochemical permutations are effectively infinite while the functional ones are very limited". So the non-random process is as equally important as the random process. The result is, when we map the development of natural history, we get a non-random migration towards survival strategies that suit the various habitats on earth.

Secondly, even if NS was in some sense less important, the outcome would still be decidedly non-random.

... non-functional biochemical permutations are effectively infinite while the functional ones are very limited ... and this fact means that any selection system (like NS) would be swamped by non-functional permutations produced by any non-directed (spontaneous) process like mutagenesis ... and it is therefore completely incapable of generating any CSI, and therefore Materialistic Evolution doesn't even begin to explain the production of the vast quantities of aditional Complex Specified Genetic Information that exists between 'Pondkind and Mankind'!!!

Again, you are changing the topic. The above paragraph is not arguing that evolution is random, but rather even non-random evolution is not enough to prune the "phenotype space". You are wrong, but we cannot move on to discussing that until you accept that evolution is the non-random selection of random mutations.

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Secular religion is a term used to describe ideas, theories or philosophies which involve no spiritual component, yet possess qualities similar to those of a religion. Such qualities include such things as dogma, a system of indoctrination, the prescription of an absolute code of conduct, an ideologically tailored creation story and end-times narrative, designated enemies, and unquestioning devotion to a higher authority. The secular religion operates in a secular society by filling a role which would be satisfied by the Church, or another religious authority.-Wikipedia

Evolution is just an explanation of how we came to be in the forms we are in.

People are labeled 'Heretics' as you put it, by going against the scientific method.
It's similar to the Boy Who Cried Wolf, someone proclaims to have a new answer, people look and see it's based in religion driven fantasy then ignore the rest of his work as tainted.

Materialistic Evolutionism and its 'science' is based on the unfounded 'religion driven fantasy' that God doesn't exist ... and therefore its adherents allow only Materialistic Processes as an acceptable explanation for all phenomena (including the origins of the Universe and life).

As an unfounded 'religion driven fantasy', (to use your words) Materialistic Evolutionism has no more of a right to a legally endorsed system of indoctination in school than any other 'religion driven fantasy' ... and certainly no greater rights than evidentially-based Creation Science!!!:)

J C

Morbert wrote: »

Firstly, evolution depends on NS just as much as mutations. If you don't have NS promoting specific mutations, then you would never get anywhere, as the "non-functional biochemical permutations are effectively infinite while the functional ones are very limited". So the non-random process is as equally important as the random process. The result is, when we map the development of natural history, we get a non-random migration towards survival strategies that suit the various habitats on earth.

Secondly, even if NS was in some sense less important, the outcome would still be decidedly non-random.

... the problem is, if you don't have functional mutations ... you have nothing for NS to select!!!

... and I have already told you that non-functional biochemical permutations are effectively infinite while the functional ones are very limited ... and this fact means that any selection system (like NS) would be swamped by non-functional permutations produced by any non-directed (spontaneous) process like mutagenesis ... and it is therefore completely incapable of generating any CSI, and therefore Materialistic Evolution doesn't even begin to explain the production of the vast quantities of aditional Complex Specified Genetic Information that exists between 'Pondkind and Mankind'!!!

... and you responded with this evasive answer ... to the core issue:-

Morbert wrote: »

Again, you are changing the topic. The above paragraph is not arguing that evolution is random, but rather even non-random evolution is not enough to prune the "phenotype space". You are wrong, but we cannot move on to discussing that until you accept that evolution is the non-random selection of random mutations.

I have already accepted that there is a 'directed' dimension to NS ...
... the real issue is WHERE the functional variety came from for NS to select...
... spontaneous Mutation is incapable of producing functional biochemical sequences with any degree of practical availability due to the almost infinite ratio between the number of non-functional biochemical permutations and the very limited number of functional ones!!!
... the only possible source of such vast quantities of Complex Specified Information ... is an Intelligent CREATOR!!

... of course hope springs eternal in the minds of Evolutionists ... and even when the odds against getting a specific functional small protein is a number greater than the number of seconds it would take a snail to transport all of the matter in the entire 'Big Bang' Universe from one side to the other taking one electron at a tiime ... they still believe that it is still possible ... such great FAITH !!!:eek::D:)

J C

J C

... sometimes you just can't please an Evolutionist ... no matter what you say to him!!!:D:eek:

J C

... I guess everyone puts their faith in somebody ...:eek::D

J C

... I saw this ... and it reminded me of what has happened on this thread!!! :eek:

J C

StealthRolex wrote: »

Science explores and tells us how, theology explores why

... and here is the answer...:D:eek:

J C

In the beginning God ....
... Created all life ...


.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

... the problem is, if you don't have functional mutations ... you have nothing for NS to select!!!

... and I have already told you that non-functional biochemical permutations are effectively infinite while the functional ones are very limited ... and this fact means that any selection system (like NS) would be swamped by non-functional permutations produced by any non-directed (spontaneous) process like mutagenesis ... and it is therefore completely incapable of generating any CSI, and therefore Materialistic Evolution doesn't even begin to explain the production of the vast quantities of aditional Complex Specified Genetic Information that exists between 'Pondkind and Mankind'!!!

Again, you are attempting to change the subject. We are not discussing whether or not non-random processes like Darwinian evolution can lead to the development of life. We are discussing whether or not Darwinian evolution is non-random.

I have already accepted that there is a 'directed' dimension to NS ...
... the real issue is WHERE the functional variety came from for NS to select...
... spontaneous Mutation is incapable of producing functional biochemical sequences with any degree of practical availability due to the almost infinite ratio between the number of non-functional biochemical permutations and the very limited number of functional ones!!!
... the only possible source of such vast quantities of Complex Specified Information ... is an Intelligent CREATOR!!

... of course hope springs eternal in the minds of Evolutionists ... and even when the odds against getting a specific functional small protein is a number greater than the number of seconds it would take a snail to transport all of the matter in the entire 'Big Bang' Universe from one side to the other taking one electron at a tiime ... they still believe that it is still possible ... such great FAITH !!!:eek::D:)

Again, you are attempting to change the subject. I will happily discuss how the non-random selection of random mutations can effectively explore this space for functional survival strategies, but first we must agree that, because evolution is the non-random selection of random mutations, it cannot be described as "spontaneous evolution".

Is this spam a defensive measure? A cloud of black ink splashed on the board to evade discussion?

J C

Morbert wrote: »

Again, you are attempting to change the subject. We are not discussing whether or not non-random processes like Darwinian evolution can lead to the development of life. We are discussing whether or not Darwinian evolution is non-random.

... and I have told you (repeatedly) that the non-spontaneous element (Natural Selection) is dependent on the spontaneous element (Mutation) ... and this makes the whole Darwinian Evolution process spontaneous ... unless you now accept that Evolution is a result of the action of NS on the genetic diversity that was intelligently designed at Creation.

Morbert wrote: »

Again, you are attempting to change the subject. I will happily discuss how the non-random selection of random mutations can effectively explore this space for functional survival strategies, but first we must agree that, because evolution is the non-random selection of random mutations, it cannot be described as "spontaneous evolution".

... please do discuss this critical issue and stop stalling and hiding behind whether I describe Evolution as spontaneous or not!!!
... spontaneous Mutation is incapable of producing functional biochemical sequences with any degree of practical availability due to the almost infinite ratio between the number of non-functional biochemical permutations and the very limited number of functional ones!!!
... the only possible source of the vast quantities of Complex Specified Information observed in living organisms ... is an Intelligent CREATOR

Morbert wrote: »

Is this spam a defensive measure? A cloud of black ink splashed on the board to evade discussion?

... it isn't spam ... a picture can be as good as a thousand words!!!:):D

ColmDawson

J C wrote: »

... I saw this ... and it reminded me of what has happened on this thread!!! :eek:

It reminded you that you think posting lame cartoons somehow gives you the upper hand in a debate?

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

Materialistic Evolutionism and its 'science' is based on the unfounded 'religion driven fantasy' that God doesn't exist ... and therefore its adherents allow only Materialistic Processes as an acceptable explanation for all phenomena (including the origins of the Universe and life).

The same way you start every aspect of your life with the assumption that your God does exist.

Except if there were proof to the contrary then they would change their mind, unlike you.