frankcox

"scientists who are religiously inclined to both believe in evolution and their religious precepts. I have never met a person who believes in creationism or intelligent design who is not deeply religious. Finally, I would say with pretty fair certainty that nothing you have said in the preceding diatribe disproves the ideas of evolution, abiogenesis, or natural selection. The more studies that are done, the more secure those ideas have become not the other way around" No offense but you seem to have no concept of the argument against evolution. You have been brainwashed into believing creationist do not accept natural selection when they published the theory before Darwin made the first note on the subject. Natural selection is a scientific fact but it is a sorting mechanism, not a creative force to replace God. As far as studies on spontaneous generation , or if you prefer the synonym, abiogenesis , they have all been demolished by evolutionists themselves. You have to believe there was a precursor to DNA, there is no evidence , if so lets have it. All scientists are religious , all humans are. You need to quit equating religion with strickly Christianity. Believing in spontaneous generation is just as religious , if not more so. There are only 2 theories, either we are a special creation of God or we are a product of spontaneous generation leading to evolution, there is no third theory. All atheists who have ever lived , are living now, or will ever live have to believe in some form of evolution. Aside from Christianity and Orthodox Judaism all religions promote some form of evolution, they claim matter pre-existed intelligence. I find that idea absurd. There are I.D. advocates , Francis Crick of D.N.A. fame was one, who are confirmed atheists so he was deeply religious but anti-Christian. It seems you are trying to say that Christians who believe the Bible are not real scientist but the facts say they are if anything superior. It is a cop out to try and seperate evolution from the atheistic ideas of cosmic origin and SG. Evolution is a worldview, an explanation of the universe without God. It is a wiggle word. When you are forced to defend the scientifically absurd idea of SG you demand that people accept that the first cell and the first creature were just there. Once you remove SG and transmutation from evolution all you have is Natural Selection , adaptation. Evolution is claimed to be the creative force that turned pondscum into people. Natural Selection is a sorting mechanism. Only God can create. Of course I will be banned for saying that as this site demands only atheistic explanations, no matter how unscientific they are. The more we study the rocks the more we find catastrophe. All of Darwin's claims about the Santa Cruz river are denounced by modern geology which recognizes the features he claimed proved millions of years as ice age, the Scablands and the Grand Coulee are attributed to post ice age floods, even the Scottish shore that Hutton first used to sell the idea of Uniformitarianism has been re-interpreted as catastrophe. There were more claimed transistionals in Darwin day than today and there is not one single fossil that even all evolutionists agree is transistional, if so name it. What you said about evidence is simply untrue, evolutionists cannot decide between Neo-Darwinism and P.E.

Faulty logic? That is a statement, not an argument. Why is it faulty? What logic says that matter pre-existed intelligence? If that was true then matter created intelligence and you have no reason to believe any of your thoughts . Nothing can create itself as it would have to pre-exist itself. Logic dictates matter was created by intelligence.

A theory of origins with no origin and no methodology is not a theory at all. The late Professor George G. Simpson likewise commented in no uncertain terms that: "The book called The Origin of Species is not really on that subject" The atheistic explanation for origins for thousands of years was spontaneous generation and it was bitterly fought for . Darwin wisely let Huxley handle that issue and Huxley renamed it to make it less offensive to those who understood SG was scientifically impossible. This leaves the atheist with no theory. The only explanation for matter is that it is eternal which is scientifically unsound and there is no theory for the origin of the universe or life. What they are reduced to is trying to pull a fast one and claim any one who disagrees is unscientific or stupid. They try and force people to just assume that matter was "Just There" , that the Big Bang "Just Happened", and the the first cell and the first creature were "Just There". They are invoking miracle upon miracle and all the while falsely claiming to be areligious, a logical impossibility. The ancient Greeks were evolutionists and the apostle Paul debated them in Acts 17-18. . The Epicureans and the Stoics are evolutionists to this day. All these accusations that anyone who disagrees with evolution does not understand it are fallacious. The ancient Greeks had Chronos and Chaos as gods,time and chance. They accepted spontaneous generation and transmutation as fact , modern evolutionists have identical beliefs, they just won't admit it. So I am looking for a straight answer, not some fairy tale that there were "simple" self replicators that evolved into complex D.N.A. What is "simple" in regards to a cell which is beyond mans understanding at this point and probably alway will be? And where did the falsely named and imaginary "simple" replicators come from? What evidence is there that D.N.A. was not there from the creation? Science is a method of study, not a "Just So" story.

It seems you are all talking around the real question. Where did the first cell come from . This story about phospho-lipids spontaneously forming cell membranes is beside the point. A cell is more specifically complex than anything man can dream of making so whether the story you tell is correct or not is irrelevant, finding a clay pit does not mean somewhere a brick wall has built itself. How can you seriously believe that something that the combined intelligence of all mankind can not even totally grasp much less dream of recreating just happened by a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion lucky accidents? Even then you need infinately more to end up with a living creature. We have never found any evidence that there was a precursor to D.N.A. and the only reason that so many present these ideas that evolutionists themselves refute such as magical R.N.A. worlds is not because of the evidence but because they don't want to consider the obvious, that we were created by a being with intelligence beyond our ability to comprehend. That is where the observable evidence leads. Man can not create a single grain of sand from nothing therefore someone else did. These stories about RNA worlds and phospho-lipids are red herrings, they do not address the question of origins at all, where did they come from, "Just There" is a fairy tale . Once upon a time there was hydrogen, no one knows why , it was just there. Hydrogen is a colorless , odorless gas. Hydrogen turned into all the other elements These elements turned into plants , pets ,and people Hydrogen is a colorless , odorless gas, that left alone long enough, turns into plants , pets ,and people. Ain't science cool!

LOL! What is evolution to you? In order to create new life forms or even new features you need new information, not damaged existing information. The world is cursed, it is in decline, we are headed for extinction not turning into Friedrich Nietzsche's supermen.

Considering that mutations are sometimes passed on and the population of the earth is increasing in a geometric progression extinction is inevitable. It amuses me that people who claim to think scientifically have not noticed that we are losing species to extinction a bit faster than we gain them and this appears to have been the case from the beginning. You watch to much science fiction . After all if evolution is true humans are just another animal.

If medicine is "evolutionary" then why were creationists the ones who discovered antiseptic surgery, the germ theory of disease, antiseptic surgery, the M.R.I. etc. It is obvious from this post that evolution is simply a religious belief and you are looking for ways to force what we observe to "fit" in its framework. What evidence is there that the most complex organization of matter in the universe, the human brain , "evolved' ? People have always been intelligent. Knowledge has increased but from what I observe intelligence is decreasing. Mutations are piling up so humans are declining. There may be temporary improvement because of better health care and nutrition etc. but the idea we are "evolving" into some kind of superior being is self delusion and chronological snobbery. Hitler thought that way, he was wrong, so are you. The ancient Mayans were within our margin of error on the path of the planets and we have supercomputers. If evolution is true medicine is a very bad idea. Darwin knew this, why don't you? If you give medicine to the weak who cannot fight off disease on their own you are allowing them to survive long enough to pass on their defective genes. Evolution is a worldview that death is a friend that weeds out the weak so a doctor who believes in evolution is entertaining mutually exclusive thoughts. Let all those who cannot fight the flu or cancer die and those that remain will be immune. If there is no God this makes sense. "We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered in the manner previously indicated more tender and more widely diffused. Nor can we check our sympathy, even without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. . . . We must, therefore, bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind[/b] Charles Darwin_ The Descent of Man. Instinct is evolutionary speak for no clue. Look at Pacific Golden Plover or the Monarch butterfly. You can make up stories of some magical process that by sheer luck allows parents to implant knowledge in their young but how do you explain the knowledge in the first place? Did every bird die for millions of years before they learned how to make the trip to Hawaii ? To preserve their energy to do so? More "Just So" stories. No one has been a follower of Darwinian evolution since the 20's and are now split between Neo-Darwinism and P.E. . To bring up Lamarckism because Darwin did not rule it out is silly. He was wrong about pretty much everything from the finches to his interpretations of S.A. rivers .

It never ceases to amaze me how evoutionists use so many personal attacks and so few scientific ones. It is also amazing at how uncreative those attacks are. For instance proclaiming I am ignorant of evolution because I refuse to allow you to jut assume the first cell and in fact the first living creature because it is impossible for evolution to explain the origin of anything. Natural selection was known for eons before Charles Darwin was born and it was published in the scientific journal of the day before he wrote the first note about it. Evolution does rely on dumb luck , actually countless incredible miracles, to explain the first cell , and or , the first creature. Dead things are not affected by natural selection so unless you can explain the first cell or the first creature the whole idea of naturalism is dead in the water. But even if I spot you the first cell or the first animal it still cannot explain the transmutation of one animal into another such as fish to amphibians or reptiles to birds. If evolution were true the evidence from the fossils would be so overwhelming there would be no debate but there just is no record of slow gradual change to be found. The supposedly oldest rocks contain incredibly complex creatures with no evolutionary past. This is a prime example of the intelligence behind the argument for evolution " and those are the types that have to be dealt with harshly," All you have is personal attacks and name calling because there is no argument for naturalistic origins, , all you have to offer is your blind religious belief that everything created itself and the the first cell and the first creature were "just there". The rant that I do not understand science and the role of predictions is asinine. Evolution predicts just as Darwin said that the evidence in the fossils has to be there or his theory is null and void, he predicted that the evidence would be found, it has not yet the belief remains. Evolution is nether predicted nor explained, it is a blind religious belief. When creationists made incredible prediction on the magnetic fields of Neptune and Jupiter the secularist claimed predictions were over rated. So much for scientific objectivity. The Bible predicts you will find animals in the rocks fully formed with no evolutionary past and that is precisely what we do find. The evidence is meaningless to the evolutionists because the interpretation is made before it is found. We find dinosaurs that are unfossilized and with blood cells and soft tissue that stinks of death and this has happened more than a few times . Evolution does not predict that at all but the evidence is perfectly in harmony with creation. But again the evolutionist is not concerned with the evidence as the theory is so flexible it will explain mutually exclusive ideas like slow gradual change and punctuated equilibrium. When the scientists realized they had red blood cells instead of seeing the truth that they could in no way be 65 ma old they were amazed that dinosaurs could still stink after 65 ma. Brilliant. This whining and the pathetic accusations that creationists do not think and just say God did it shows the moral and scientific bankruptcy of the evolutionists. All of the major branches of science were founded by creationists, most of the great inventions in history from the printing press to the telegraph to the internal combustion engine , the germ theory of disease, antiseptic surgery, the M.R.I. , the computer, modern rocketry, the laser, as well as histories greatest scientists as well as the world's best surgeon , the man who separated twins joined at the head and pioneered incredible brain surgeries, the inventor of the M.R.I., some of the world's foremost biologist ,the world's foremost expert on computer modeling , the man N.A.S.A. trusts to monitor and warn us about volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, the scientist who invented the software that controls the world's weather satellites etc etc etc are all creationists so to claim creationists are stupid is to claim science is stupid. Despite popular myth the only survey I know of shows that 55% of scientists believe in evolution and less than half of those in the atheistic idea of it .If your best argument is that a majority believes it you have no argument, truth is not decided by committee. It never ceases to amaze me how pathetic the argument for evolution is. No evolutionists I have ever met has been able to give me an example of a single job in science that creationists do not excel at . If evolution was true then there could be no creationists or other anti-Darwinians that could function in say biology, but there are many thousands, including some of the worlds best. That is a direct question, name any job in science that requires a belief we descended form lower animals Here is another example of the moral bankruptcy of the evolutionists. " You don't have to be nice to them. If you give creationism any credibility or quarter whatsoever, no matter how will-intentioned or benevolent, the lies win." If evolution was true why can't you politely present the argument from science? There is no argument so all you have is personal attacks. Evolutionists ALWAYS lose public debates to creationists . That is because evolution is an ancient anti-God religion, not science. Niles Eldredge said: "Creationists travel all over the United States, visiting college campuses and staging `debates' with biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The creationists nearly always win. "The audience is frequently loaded with the already converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently, have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady onslaught of: direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific topics. No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and anthropology. Creationists today -- at least the majority of their spokesmen -- are highly educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a bewildered state of incoherence. As will be all too evident when we examine the creationist position in detail, their arguments are devoid of any real intellectual content. Creationists win debates because of their canny stage presence, and not through clarity of logic or force of evidence. The debates are shows rather than serious considerations of evolution. If you read that with anything resembling an open mind Niles admits the creationists are better prepared and very intelligent and then whines that the crowds are often predominately creationists. There is a very small amount of truth in what he says there. There used to be lot of debates at predominately secular universities and at atheist organizations like the Australian Skeptics who shot themselves in the foot by inviting on of the world's foremost biologists, Dr. Duane Gish and they were beaten so badly and reacted so rudely they were denounced by even other atheists. That was twenty years ago and to their dismay several of the skeptics were so shocked by the personal attacks that they opened their minds and are to this day working to promote Christianity through the creation ministry. His hint that something recently has changed is just nonsense, it is almost impossile to get evolutionists to debate creationists. They are told not to ecause it gives the creationists credibility, pretty much the same thing was said here, the obvious truth is that it is a loser's limp, if evolution was true and creationists stupid as so many contend then they would jump at the chance to make them look foolish. Niles at least is honest in that regard but it makes his final statement that it is just theatrics plainly immoral. Creationists win because they are smart and they have the truth on their side. Niles certainly understands that there is a real problem with the gradualistic explanation for evolution . Of course he was a big part of the second dumbest theory in the history of "so called' science, punctuated equilibrium. The only theory that uses the lack of evidence for one belief as evidence for another. Here is what he said: "Palaeobiologists flocked to these scientific visions of a world in a constant state of flux and admixture. But instead of finding the slow, smooth and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected, they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and then remaining unchanged for millions of years-patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation." (Pagel M. [Research fellow, Department of Zoology and Hertford College, Oxford University], "Happy accidents?" Review of "The Pattern of Evolution" by Niles Eldredge, W.H. Freeman 1999. Nature, Vol 397, 25 February 1999, p.665) That is the creationists argument , of course he claims evolution must have happened too fast to leave any trace. The history of evolution excluding the time from its first recording in about 600 B.C. to the days of Chuckie D. Darwinism _Slow gradual change_- Evolution by creeps. Neo-Darwinism_RM+NS_ Evolution by freaks Punctuated Absurdity_changes in isolated areas Evolution by jerks Yet another example of the moral bankruptcy of the evolutionist. "I like the way that on the rare occasions we ever get creationists any more, they don't for one second hold back and question the silent, foreboding lack of their buddies on this site before they plunge in with the lies. " Probably the reason there are so few creationists here is that people like this are boring as they pose no challenge. Nothing in that statement is indicative of intelligent thought. Calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar is the action of a mental midget. It often backfires when a fence sitter sees this satanic hatred of the evolutionists toward any one who disagrees with them and causes them to question their honesty. What could be better evidence that evolution is religious than that? When do you ever see people who disagree on any other so called "scientific" theory call their opponents names like children? Biophile I find you the least impressive. This condescending tone that creationists do not have a valid reason for their position is boring . I have yet to meet the first evolutionists who I would consider the equal of my 6th grade Sunday school class on the subject of the history of evolution. From what I see of you so far I would venture to say you are ignorant of the subject entirely. On top of that you are illogical , you are militantly ignorant of the philosophy of science and make statements that expose your general lack of common sense. For instance: "As people said, complex things like cells don't just poof into existence. It's a gradual process, and while chance is involved, natural selection comes into play as well. " That is an absolutely moronic thing to say. First of all you have no way of knowing how anything comes into existence and to think they could come into existence gradually is to not think at all. Biophile no one was there at the beginning. So where does this idea of yours come from, please understand it is religious, not scientific. Science is a method of study that concentrates on thngs we can and do know and makes inferences and predictions from those when possible. There is no known law of physics that can cause matter to be created from nothing but matter exists. Therefore there is a supernatural explanation or matter has always existed. Either way it is a religious belief but which one makes sense? Why is there matter, what could cause natural laws to exists? Most scientists believe there was a beginning based on the evidence as well as their personal beliefs. As far as your claim that living things could come into existence slowly where does that idea come from? Everything we observe says life is either there or its not. Can you give me an example ? Really, that is a mindless statement to say dead matter slowly comes to life and natural selection has something to do with it. You are free to believe what ever you want but don't call it science. This whole argument is not based on observation, science, or logic, it is your personal religious belief, nothing more, nothing less. Life is instantaneous and so is death. For 2500 years evolutionists taught spontaneous generation . Many fought openly with Pasteur and then Huxley renamed it abiogenesis to make it sound better. If you read the history that is what happened . Or at least read the dictionary. Spontaneous generation or special creation are the ONLY options, always have been, always will be. All the atheists who ever lived were evolutionists and all the atheists who will ever live will be evolutionists. It is the atheist creation story, there are no exceptions. Whenever it is shown to be false you punt and make mindless statements like the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution or life forms slowly and gradually , it is absolutely absurd. And no matter how you whine abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are the same exact thing, they are synonyms. Note the reference to Huxley,. The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Cite This Source Abiogenesis Ab`i*o*gen"e*sis\, n. [Gr. 'a priv. + ? life + ?, origin, birth.] (Biol.) The supposed origination of living organisms from lifeless matter; such genesis as does not involve the action of living parents; spontaneous generation; -- called also abiogeny, and opposed to biogenesis. I shall call the . . . doctrine that living matter may be produced by not living matter, the hypothesis of abiogenesis. --Huxley, 1870. a·bi·o·gen·e·sis (ā'bī-ō-jěn'ĭ-sĭs) Pronunciation Key n. The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation. a'bi·o·ge·net'ic (-jə-nět'ĭk), a'bi·o·ge·net'i·cal adj., a'bi·o·ge·net'i·cal·ly adv., a'bi·og'e·nist (-ŏj'ə-nĭst) n. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Cite This Source abiogenesis noun a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. Cite This Source abiogenesis (ā'bī-ō-jěn'ĭ-sĭs) Pronunciation Key See spontaneous generation. a·bi·o·gen·e·sis (ā'bī-ō-jěn'ĭ-sĭs) Pronunciation Key n. The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation. a'bi·o·ge·net'ic (-jə-nět'ĭk), a'bi·o·ge·net'i·cal adj., a'bi·o·ge·net'i·cal·ly adv., a'bi·og'e·nist (-ŏj'ə-nĭst) n. spontaneous generation n. See abiogenesis. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Cite This Source spontaneous generation noun a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter [syn: abiogenesis] WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. Cite This Source spontaneous generation The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter, as maggots from rotting meat. The theory of spontaneous generation for larger organisms was easily shown to be false, but the theory was not fully discredited until the mid-19th century with the demonstration of the existence and reproduction of microorganisms, most notably by Louis Pasteur. Also called abiogenesis. The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Cite This Source Main Entry: spontaneous generation Function: noun : ABIOGENESIS Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc. Cite This Source

Those probabilities have been figured by several sources, , the atheist Fred Hoyle, NASA, etc. What is wrong with your approach is making these outlandish statements about imaginary primiitave cells. And the idea that biotic material coalesces to form a biotic system is a fairy tale. Give me an example? Biotic systems are specifically complex, they are ordered, planned, plans require a planner. What is this magical force you seem to believe causes this? Dead things are not affected by natural selection. Sadly it takes a creationist to tell an evolution what his/her religious beliefs are and what they are really trying to convince themselves is a scientific theory. Hydrogen is a colorless , odorless gas that left to itself long enough turns into planets , plants, pets , and people. Brilliant!, Simply brilliant! Once upon a time there was nothing, no one knows why, it was just there, then it went boom. Ain't science cool!