Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Death of Darwinism

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,515
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    26

    Default Death of Darwinism

    DNA is a digital code. Darwinism cannot explain the origin of life because it can't explain the origin of information in the code. Irreducible complexity refuses chance as a designer. We are clearly products of design. If by design, then there is a Designer. If there is a Designer, He has a purpose and we have an accountability.

    Some in the scientific community are only concerned with trying to bolster their mechanistic theory (philosophy of mechanism) which tries to explain phenomena only by reference to physical or biological causes.

  2. #2
    Wiccan_Child Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    DNA is a digital code.
    No it isn't. Digital code is binary, DNA is quaternary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    Darwinism cannot explain the origin of life
    Darwinian evolution is the theory that explains how modern biological diversity arose from simple self-replicating molecules over ~3.5 billion years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    because it can't explain the origin of information in the code.
    First, there is no such thing as 'information in the code'. Second, I need only point out the existance of point insertion mutations to refute this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    Irreducible complexity refuses chance as a designer.
    Hence why ID is unscientific: it does not acknowledge all possibilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    We are clearly products of design.
    We are complex, certainly. But complexity does not imply design.

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    If by design, then there is a Designer.
    Nope. It is a demonstratable fact that things can be 'designed' without a designer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    If there is a Designer, He has a purpose and we have an accountability.
    How so?

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    Some in the scientific community are only concerned with trying to bolster their mechanistic theory (philosophy of mechanism) which tries to explain phenomena only by reference to physical or biological causes.
    Scientists try to explain given phenomena and/or data in the most scientific way possible (i.e., by being parsimonious, etc). No possible explanation is omitted, but those that are indistinguishable from parody are obviously not considered.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,515
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Your petty self is petty. DNA is a kind of digital code, but with 4 types.

    Since we are after the cause of the what caused the first single-celled organism, Darwinism can't help us, thus it is limited also in its perspective of the designer following the first single-celled life. It's best not to shut your mind down when looking to what caused the first single-celled life.

    There is information in the code, for it is clear the code is arranged in a pattern of information that builds living beings.

    Of course intelligent design acknowledges all possibilities and selects those that are in agreement with the righteousness and holiness of the uncreated creator. He did it!

    Complexity implies design because the the complexity is increasing exponentially, along with conscience, and thus, there cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects, for we would not still be sinning by now or we would have long since inhabited Mars, etc.

    To say something is designed requires a cause of design which is the designer. A non-designer can't design.

    Since there is purpose in the design which is redemption and eternal blessings with God in the new city, for God to walk with those who receive Him out of His glory, then the consequence of unsalvation is your eternal separation from God when you are resurrected for hell.

    Your soul can't be annihilated, but must be resurrected because you are made in God's image. God will respect your decision to choose where Satan is going.

  4. #4
    DD_8630 Guest

    Default

    My username has changed from "Wiccan_Child" to "DD_8630". I'm still me :)

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    Your petty self is petty.
    I'm sorry?

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    Since we are after the cause of the what caused the first single-celled organism, Darwinism can't help us, thus it is limited also in its perspective of the designer following the first single-celled life. It's best not to shut your mind down when looking to what caused the first single-celled life.
    Indeed. This is why the theory of abiogenesis was formulated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    There is information in the code, for it is clear the code is arranged in a pattern of information that builds living beings.
    What do you mean by 'information'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    Of course intelligent design acknowledges all possibilities and selects those that are in agreement with the righteousness and holiness of the uncreated creator. He did it!
    You said: "Irreducible complexity refuses chance as a designer."
    Thus, ID is unscientific.

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    Complexity implies design because
    You say this, but you don't seem to complete this train of thought. You just meander about using nebulous terms. Would you like to explain why complexity implies design?

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    the the complexity is increasing exponentially,
    What do you mean by 'complexity'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    for we would not still be sinning by now or we would have long since inhabited Mars, etc.
    :laugh:

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    To say something is designed requires a cause of design which is the designer. A non-designer can't design.
    You have merely asserted the existance of design, and the necessary existance of a designer for things that appear designed. You have not demonstrated either. Indeed, the theory of evolution shows how things that appear designed can arise from things that don't appear designed, without the use of a designer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    Since there is purpose in the design
    Is there? How did you deduce this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    which is redemption and eternal blessings with God in the new city, for God to walk with those who receive Him out of His glory,
    Is it? How did you deduce this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    then the consequence of unsalvation is your eternal separation from God when you are resurrected for hell.

    Your soul can't be annihilated, but must be resurrected because you are made in God's image. God will respect your decision to choose where Satan is going.
    Even if you are able to prove the existance of a Designer, you have not shown why this Designer is necessarily your god.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,515
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    The reason why Jesus is God because none can compare to Him and you can't explain away the eyewitness accounts in multiple group settings that observed His resurrection. Who else who walked the earth who said they were the uncreated Creator?

  6. #6
    DD_8630 Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    The reason why Jesus is God because none can compare to Him and you can't explain away the eyewitness accounts in multiple group settings that observed His resurrection.
    I don't have to: no such eyewitnesses existed. There are no contemporary documents attesting the existance of Jesus nor even his alleged actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    Who else who walked the earth who said they were the uncreated Creator?
    All of the above have as much evidence supporting their existance (both physical and spiritual) as Jesus does: none.

    In any case, since when were we talking about Jesus? The topic is Darwinism, isn't it?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,515
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Scholars agree that Paul really believed what he wrote in Gal. 1 & 2, 1 Cor. 15 in which he said he met with the apostles and had the same testimony.

    Only Jesus had multiple eyewitness testimony of being resurrected which is the test. None can compare. We're talking about a real person, the historical Jesus who walked the earth with the apostles for three years. I don't see anything that you could challenge with.

    And yes, Darwinism is dead because it can't explain the information formation of the code in the inital single celled organism.

  8. #8
    DD_8630 Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    Scholars agree that Paul really believed what he wrote in Gal. 1 & 2, 1 Cor. 15 in which he said he met with the apostles and had the same testimony.
    Scholars also believe that Paul suffered from hallucinogenic epileptic fits. Visions of deities are not uncommon under suc conditions.
    So while he may have believed what he wrote, this does not necessarily mean it happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    Only Jesus had multiple eyewitness testimony of being resurrected which is the test. None can compare.
    First, Mithras had multiple eyewitnesses as well.
    Second, where are all these eyewitness accounts? There are no documents attesting to the actions of Jesus as protrayed in the NT (e.g., the Temple fiasco would have been recorded by the dozens of contemporary historians of the time).

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    We're talking about a real person, the historical Jesus who walked the earth with the apostles for three years. I don't see anything that you could challenge with.
    You merely assert that we are talking about a real person. I see no evidence for his existance. Indeed, the absence of evidence is most telling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    And yes, Darwinism is dead because it can't explain the information formation of the code in the inital single celled organism.
    First, I contend that no such information exists (I challenge you to provide a relevant definition of 'information', and to demonstrate how Darwinism fails to account for it).

    Second, Darwinism isn't an explanation for the origin of life, merely of biodiversity. Asking Darwinism to explain the origin of life is like asking Einstein's field equations to explain the origin of viral pneumonia.

    Third, science does have an explanation for the origin of life:
    1. The conditions of early Earth are conducive to the spontaneous formation of amino acids and nucleotides in said Earth's primordial oceans and vents.
    2. Said oceans and vents became teeming with said organic molecules.
    3. Said molecules spontaneously combined with each other in various combinations, as per statistical laws.
    4. Eventually, one of said combinations just so happened to be a replicator (while this is speciously improbable, remember that we are dealing with trillions of chemical reactions between trillions of molecules; the very improbable becomes very probable with sufficiently high numbers).
    5. The theory of evolution by natural selection tells us how we get from a self-replicating molecule to multicellular organisms.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,515
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Actually hallucinations don't apply here, because a hallucination is seeing something that is not there, but those with Paul saw the same bright light as they fell down to their knees and also heard sounds at the time Paul saw Jesus. And he had no reason to believe in Jesus for his faith and standing in Judaism was prominent. Something really happened.

    Mithra did not have multiple eyewitnesses, nor was there a resurrection recorded until after the resurrection of Jesus. The Talmud records Jesus. As Christianity was starting out, none would have had any interest except those who walked with the historical Jesus or those who were in fear of the prophecy of the coming Messiah such as predicted in Daniel.

    If we want to determine the cause of the first single-celled life, darwinism can't help us. Man is unable to replicate the creation of the first single celled life from the inanimate and probably never will. Because of this fact, we must look to a greater reason for this formation. Hence, since all things in nature have a cause and nothing in nature can happen all by itself, it is easy to conclude that the uncreated would have been the ultimate cause as the only possibility, logically speaking. Now, he entered into creation to save you from yourself and your sins through the atonement, but it is your free-choice to refuse the forgiveness of your creator with hell as your final destination.

    God is looking for the called out ones to walk with for eternity in the new city and new earth. Out of His glory, some will choose life.

  10. #10
    DD_8630 Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    Actually hallucinations don't apply here, because a hallucination is seeing something that is not there, but those with Paul saw the same bright light as they fell down to their knees and also heard sounds at the time Paul saw Jesus. And he had no reason to believe in Jesus for his faith and standing in Judaism was prominent. Something really happened.
    Unless, of course, it didn't. What reason do you have to believe that those other people saw what Paul saw?

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    Mithra did not have multiple eyewitnesses, nor was there a resurrection recorded until after the resurrection of Jesus.
    Mithrasism was an independant religion in Persia by at least 500 BCE.

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    The Talmud records Jesus.
    The Talmud's earliest component was written in c.200CE. Why is there no contemporary mention of Christ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    As Christianity was starting out, none would have had any interest except those who walked with the historical Jesus or those who were in fear of the prophecy of the coming Messiah such as predicted in Daniel.
    On the contrary, Jesus' Temple fiasco would not have gone without notice. Where were the historians then?

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    If we want to determine the cause of the first single-celled life, darwinism can't help us.
    AGreed. I have been saying this from the start. However, there are other scientific theories which do deal with the origin of life. There is thus far no evidence supporting the Genesis account (in any of its interpretations). Rather, the evidence supports a chemical abiogenesis event(s) ~3.5 billion years ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    Man is unable to replicate the creation of the first single celled life from the inanimate and probably never will.
    Why should it? No biologist worth his salt believes the first lifeform was cellular.

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    Because of this fact, we must look to a greater reason for this formation. Hence, since all things in nature have a cause and nothing in nature can happen all by itself, it is easy to conclude that the uncreated would have been the ultimate cause as the only possibility, logically speaking.
    Abiogenesis only requires a primordial Earth with a vague set of conditions. The evidence tells us that the Earth did indeed have these conditions. How they got there is the subject of yet another theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    Now, he entered into creation to save you from yourself and your sins through the atonement, but it is your free-choice to refuse the forgiveness of your creator with hell as your final destination.
    Why is the Creator entity necessarily your deity? Why is the Creator entity not, say, the FSM?

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    God is looking for the called out ones to walk with for eternity in the new city and new earth. Out of His glory, some will choose life.
    If he is, then he's calling bloody quietly. I haven't heard a peep from him, and I spent 11 years listening intently.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Necessity of Death - Death of the Flesh is the Only Salvation
    By spiritualman in forum Dividing Spirit, Soul, Body
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-25-2016, 04:46 PM
  2. The Necessity of Death
    By Faithful in forum Dividing Spirit, Soul, Body
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-15-2012, 11:34 AM
  3. Everyone Dies in Jesus' Death
    By Churchwork in forum Totally Depraved
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-28-2008, 03:27 PM
  4. Death of the Self-life
    By Churchwork in forum Dividing Spirit, Soul, Body
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-24-2006, 08:09 PM
  5. 3 Ways to Overcome Death
    By Churchwork in forum OSAS Arminian
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-03-2006, 08:19 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •