Death of Darwinism

[Churchwork]

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.

[Wiccan_Child]

DNA is a digital code.
No it isn't. Digital code is binary, DNA is quaternary.


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.


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.


Irreducible complexity refuses chance as a designer.
Hence why ID is unscientific: it does not acknowledge all possibilities.


We are clearly products of design.
We are complex, certainly. But complexity does not imply design.


If by design, then there is a Designer.
Nope. It is a demonstratable fact that things can be 'designed' without a designer.




If there is a Designer, He has a purpose and we have an accountability.
How so?



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.

[Churchwork]

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.

[DD_8630]

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


Your petty self is petty.
I'm sorry?



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.



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'?


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.



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?


the the complexity is increasing exponentially,
What do you mean by 'complexity'?


for we would not still be sinning by now or we would have long since inhabited Mars, etc.
:laugh:


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.


Since there is purpose in the design
Is there? How did you deduce this?


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?


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.

[Churchwork]

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?

[DD_8630]

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.


Who else who walked the earth who said they were the uncreated Creator?

Marduk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marduk) killing Tiamat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiamat) in the Babylonian Enuma Elish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enuma_Elish);
Egyptian mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_mythology)
Atum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atum) in Ennead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ennead), whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe
alternatively, Ptah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptah) creating the universe by speaking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos);
El (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28god%29) or the Elohim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim) of Canaanite mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_mythology) (see Creation according to Genesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_according_to_Genesis))
the sons of Borr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borr) slaying the primeval giant Ymir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ymir) in Norse mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_mythology);
Kamui (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamui) in Ainu mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ainu_mythology), who built the world on the back of a trout;
Izanagi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izanagi) and Izanami (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izanami) in Japanese mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_mythology), who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
Mbombo of Bakuba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakuba) mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
Unkulunkulu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unkulunkulu) in Zulu mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulu_mythology)
Brahma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma) in Hindu mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_mythology), responsible for the creation of the universe (while Vishnu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu) and Shiva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva) are responsible for its maintenance and destruction, respectively).
Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Māori mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81ori_mythology)
the goddess Coatlique (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coatlique) in Aztec mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_mythology)
Viracocha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viracocha) in Inca mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_mythology)
a trickster deity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickster) in the form of a Raven in Inuit mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_mythology)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?

[Churchwork]

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.

[DD_8630]

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.


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).


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.


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:
The conditions of early Earth are conducive to the spontaneous formation of amino acids and nucleotides in said Earth's primordial oceans and vents.
Said oceans and vents became teeming with said organic molecules.
Said molecules spontaneously combined with each other in various combinations, as per statistical laws.
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).
The theory of evolution by natural selection tells us how we get from a self-replicating molecule to multicellular organisms.

[Churchwork]

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.

[DD_8630]

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?



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.


The Talmud records Jesus.
The Talmud's earliest component was written in c.200CE. Why is there no contemporary mention of Christ?


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?


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.


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.


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.


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?



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.

[Churchwork]

Understand the addition of a resurrection in Mithraism did not occur until after the resurrection of Jesus. There is no documentation to a resurrection prior, but it was added diabolically to try to copy Christianity. Know that the religion that is true would stand the test of time. Christianity prevailed.

Gal. 1 & 2 and 1 Cor. 15 were completed with 20 years of the death on the cross of Jesus. These are the most important and contemporary documents that scholars are agreed on are really Paul's writings and beliefs. This is called the Minimal Facts Approach.

If you can't scientifically replicate the creation of life, then you can't. Only God can.

Since the uncreated is spirit and not spaghetti which is a created product, your FSM fails and Jesus as always, prevails.

Know that hell is for you because you don't want to accept the forgiveness of your creator.

The Genesis account remains unchallenged because you can't create the a single celled life from the inanimate.

God made your spirit with God-consciousness so you are without excuse. By choosing to shut your mind down to the Word of God already given in the 66 books of the Bible and accept John 3, there is no other recourse for you to escape Hell.

My prayers go out to you.

[DD_8630]

Know that the religion that is true would stand the test of time. Christianity prevailed.
Along with Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Islam, etc.



Gal. 1 & 2 and 1 Cor. 15 were completed with 20 years of the death on the cross of Jesus. These are the most important and contemporary documents that scholars are agreed on are really Paul's writings and beliefs.
I'll grant you that almost all scholars believe that Paul wrote Galatians and Corinthians, but 20 years after the event is not contemporary.
If the media first reported the death of Princess Diana 20 years after the car crash, would that be considered contemporary?

Indeed, I ask you again:
Jesus' Temple fiasco would not have gone without notice. Where were the contemporary historians?



If you can't scientifically replicate the creation of life, then you can't. Only God can.
Correction: if at any given time I can't replicate the creation of life, then at that time I can't. This says nothing about my future abilities, however. Indeed, the standard model states that it took ~1 billion years for the formation of life. Come back to me in 2 billion years, and we'll see whether abiogenesis is possible or not.



Since the uncreated is spirit and not spaghetti which is a created product, your FSM fails and Jesus as always, prevails.
On the contrary, the universe is as it is because this is the only possible state in which a pasta-making species could evolve (namely: us).
Satire aside, my point was that you assume the Uncreated Creator is the Judaeo-Christian God, without any justification.

If we assume that you have sucessfully proven the existance of an Uncaused Causer (or w/e), can you demonstrate why this is necessarily your god?
Note that saying 'because none can compare to Christ' requires a demonstration itself: it is not good simply asserting that none can compare.


Know that hell is for you because you don't want to accept the forgiveness of your creator.
Why would I not want to? An all-loving deity, a paradise awaiting me after death, etc, would all be wonderful if it were true. However, I see no reason to do what you say I need to do to get into Heaven over what the Muslim says, or the Buddhist says, or the Jew says, etc.
That is, there are countless faiths all telling me that I must do x, y, and z, before I can get into Heaven. Which faith do I listen to, and why?



The Genesis account remains unchallenged because you can't create the a single celled life from the inanimate.
So in a court of law, if the police cannot exactly recreate a murder, all suspects are free to go? How silly.


God made your spirit with God-consciousness so you are without excuse.
Circular logic. This is asserted by the Bible, and the whole thing fails if it turns out the Bible is a load of hooey.


By choosing to shut your mind down to the Word of God already given in the 66 books of the Bible and accept John 3, there is no other recourse for you to escape Hell.
You seem to be under the impression that I can choose what I believe.


My prayers go out to you.
Quite.

[Churchwork]

There is not a reporting of the death of Jesus for the first time twenty years after Jesus died, but the final compiling of these three chapters within 20 years of the death of Jesus is what occurred. Writings that existed from the time of Jesus' death to 20 years after his death have been lost. That is not unreasonable in antiquity so far removed from today. And these three chapters within 20 years of Jesus' death we know existed is more contemporary than other events in antiquity. The Iliad's earliest known copy is over a thousand years later from the time of its said events.

How do we know you have God-consciousness in your spirit? Very simply, because the Uncreated is proven and He said you are made in His image, then you have awareness of Him and are only fooling yourself on your way to hell trying to fight against Him. He treats you as intrinsic value, not instrumental value. You will not cease to exist, but be resurrected for hell because God's image can never be annihilated.

[DD_8630]

There is not a reporting of the death of Jesus for the first time twenty years after Jesus died, but the final compiling of these three chapters within 20 years of the death of Jesus is what occurred. Writings that existed from the time of Jesus' death to 20 years after his death have been lost. That is not unreasonable in antiquity so far removed from today.
Nope. Our record of documentation from the time in question is rather complete.


And these three chapters within 20 years of Jesus' death we know existed is more contemporary than other events in antiquity. The Iliad's earliest known copy is over a thousand years later from the time of its said events.
Nevertheless, it is not contemporary. You'd think that if someone saw God Incarnate they would write it down straight away, or at least tell someone who could write it down (Paul, say), rather than wait 20 years.

Now, why didn't any historian at the time record Jesus fiasco' in the Temple?


How do we know you have God-consciousness in your spirit? Very simply, because the Uncreated is proven and He said you are made in His image,
Neither of which are proven. Try again.

[Churchwork]

Nobody can comment on what was written then, for the earliest known papyrus that still exists today is from about 105 AD. Nonetheless, we have the 66 books of the Bible still preserved that were completed in the first century.

I am sure people did write things down right away, but such papyrus's were unlikely to have survived. One can't say Jesus turning the tables in the Temple was not recorded right away, only that the final compilation was some years later.

Since you could find no fault with the 4 Step Proof for God and the Minimal Facts Approach, therefore accept the proof for God being Jesus.

[DD_8630]

Nobody can comment on what was written then, for the earliest known papyrus that still exists today is from about 105 AD.
Funny, you've made quite a few comments on them already.


I am sure people did write things down right away, but such papyrus's were unlikely to have survived. One can't say Jesus turning the tables in the Temple was not recorded right away, only that the final compilation was some years later.
As I said before, our collection of 0CE - 33CE documents is pretty complete. We even have divorce papers and love notes.



Since you could find no fault with the 4 Step Proof for God and the Minimal Facts Approach, therefore accept the proof for God being Jesus.
With all due respect, I found faults with all 8 points.

[Churchwork]

We can comment on what was preserved from then through oral tradition and papyrus' copied for the NT, but we can't name the parchments specifically that led to the final copies of the NT books. That poses no difficulty.

There is no reason to think Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written soon after Jesus died and partly during their time with Jesus. Perhaps they kept diaries to keep some notes.

I am glad you couldn't repeat any of these points you said you found fault with. People say lots of things, but like the Bible said, Prove all things (1 Thess. 5.21).

[DD_8630]

We can comment on what was preserved from then through oral tradition and papyrus' copied for the NT, but we can't name the parchments specifically that led to the final copies of the NT books. That poses no difficulty.
On the contrary, I contend that no such older documents exist. I contend that the originals were written several decades after Jesus' alleged death. I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise.



There is no reason to think Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written soon after Jesus died and partly during their time with Jesus. Perhaps they kept diaries to keep some notes.
And they just so happened to record independant sets of events that show no indication that they are a quarter of the whole, huh?

[Churchwork]

What matters is you have nothing to support your claim. As most things are written, there is an earlier draft.

They are not quarters of a whole, but 4 different perspectives.

I am going to have to give you an infraction, because all you do is self-declare your position, but don't have anything to support it, which is violation of Board Etiquette #6. If you want to hold a contrary position, that history is wrong somehow, at least bring in something to support your idea.