Christian & Catholic
Out of context: Reply #212
- Started
- Last post
- 262 Responses
- discipler0
opiate - my portfolio has nothing to do with the discussion in this thread. But don't worry it has lots of Helvetica fonts.
kes, you make very little sense. Let me break it down: Remarks were made about the legitimacy of authors and scientists who believe the Creation model. Soooooooo, I directly responded to the criticism by providing countless scientists by name. Point, counterpoint... it is often called. Healthy intelligent debate, on my part. Rather than dodge, as you falsely acuse, I'm actually directly responding to criticisms. It's pretty clear, really. And that's what I do here... provide another viewpoint. And I happily shrug off the insecure who just point and laugh and respond in a way that demonstrates how threatened they feel by the fact that there are significant holes in the religion of naturalism. I just think naturalism requires entirely too much faith. :)
Now, for one last time, I'm going to post what I wrote earlier and if someone would like to break it down point by point and provide me with believable, scientific rebuttal. I will continue in this thread. However, if everyone just wants to duck and dodge and point and laugh... well, good-day.
----------------------------
Let me share some facts that may hopefully spur some honest seekers to do a thoughtful and objective study of origins. Those who vehemently adhere to an evolutionary model for origins do so without bothering to either take a hard look at some of evolution's assumptions, or to wrestle with the real problems that it faces. They have accepted evolution on the basis of authority, because their professors or academic gurus told them so - a kind of faith. Consider as well the very brief time this belief has been around.
It should be noted that Intelligent Design does not ignore the variation and range of adaptibility displayed by living organisms. What it does posit is that the range of adaptibility of organisms is finite. The genome of a dog yields a tremendous range of phenotypical expression, from Chihuahuas to Great Danes... but at the end of the day, they are both still dogs, not cats. And this is exactly what science actually observes. No scientist has ever seen a dog become something other than a dog, or vice-versa. Louis Pasteur's famous observation, that life only comes from life, has never been disproved. His experiments have already falsified all claims that life originated from primordial goo, but philosophical considerations - not facts, not science - prevent this from being accepted by evolutionists. So, which model of origins requires more faith?
What honest seekers need to learn about is such biochemical marvels as the clotting cascade, the chemistry of vision, the bacterial flagellum, and countless others, and decide which hypothesis better explains what is observed, random evolution? or, a creative intelligent guiding force? For biochemical "machines" to function, you must first have all the parts available. Evolution cannot exert selective pressures on something that is non-functioning in the first place. The common sense behind this observation should be manifest to every person who does not have an episemological axe to grind.
Here is a question so fundamental to biological life that it is a wonder that evolution has yet to explain it: if the mechanism by which a trait is inhereted is that it conveys a survival advantage to the possessor, then why are we not all self-fertile hermaphrodites, like earthworms? Dimorphic sexuality - male and female - has no reason to ever arise under evolution since every organism would already have within itself the seeds of its own survival.
Intelligent Design and Creationism is not about illegitimately imposing the dictates of faith upon science, but about raising rational objections to proposed Darwinian explanations of the biological world.
Some specific points to further research, which demonstrate the devastating holes in macro evolution are...
1. The complete lack of transitional fossils between species. The record only contains fully formed species. Consistent with the genome explanation above.
2. The tension between Evolution and Entropy (The Second Law of Thermodynamics). A proven scientific law which states that the universe is breaking down... decaying, if you will. This flies in the face of the macro evolutionary model. The open/closed system arguement has been shown to not hold any water either.
3. Closed experiments intended to generate life via heated pools with electrical charges, etc... have failed miserably, producing nothing that could generate human cells. (See Pasteur's experiments.
)4. Evolution's inability to account for human emotion, the desire to love and be loved and express compassion.
There are countless other foundation crumbling problems with evolution, but I think this post is lengthy enough. And as for the Big Bang - perfectly consistent with the creation model. By posulating it you only push the issue of origins a step back. Who initiated said, Big Bang?