Its a fact that the genome is deteriorating so fast that we as a species will not survive for another 10k years. Natural selection cannot take care of that deterioration, much less is it able to create NEW information to enable the mythical Darwinian evolution to happen.
Random mutations and natural selection as processes are not capable of directing the creation of new structures, it cannot create the information required for selection of new materials, instantiate the knowledge required to use those materials in the formation of novel units of functionality and the incorporation of said functionality into the existing organism.
To hang onto this paradigm for the creation of the stupendous amount of diversity of biological lifeforms is akin to idolatry, ascribing acts of creation to random processes which only belongs to the all-knowing God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
No one can demonstrate the [false] claim that a single cellular organism can âevolveâ firstly the ability to replicate and secondly form the origin for all of biological life as we know it. Either the first life has replication built in or it perishes. If built-in then it MUST have been intelligently created because of the enormous complexity involved in self-replication.
If intelligently built, then why not just go the whole hog and create life fully formed as Genesis 1 makes quite clear.
The denial of the creative abilities of the God of the bible as depicted in Genesis 1 amounts to the invention of another god - a clear case of idolatry.
But where does the information for the existence of those programs come from? Where did the evolutionary process introduce the necessary knowledge/information that currently exist in all biological life? Where did it get it from? How can this knowledge/information/code arise from purely physical/chemical/materialistic processes?
Or more directly - since the manufacture of any highly specialized, functioning unit relies on plans or ârecipesâ for its existence, where do those plans come from? Plans are abstract, so how does your blind, random, natural selection[culling] evolutionary process create the plan AND create the means of decoding the plan?
Darwinian evolution is dead in the water. The more we discover about the insides of the biological cell, the more impossible it becomes for Darwinian evolution to be true.
A belief in darwinian evolution is akin to believing that the first IBM mainframe and PCs made themselves out of random junk flying about in a hurricane. And that is clearly absurd.
I guess the effects of rain should then be to carve out shapes like those existing on mount rushmore since the same kind of intelligence is required. Yet we know that to be patently absurd.
Darwinian Evolution Does not possess such an intelligence as youâd like to ascribe to it. Such an attribution of intelligence and creative ability amounts to nothing more than the invention of another god because that god is then responsible for all of biological life as we see it currently. This in complete contradiction of what the bible has to say on the subject - the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob created the fully diverse forms of life - each after its kind - right in the beginning, no evolution required. God is the god of the living, not the dead. Evolution is the god of the dead and dying - killing off of life supposedly to âform another, better lifeâ. The two are diametrically opposed.
You cannot serve two masters, either youâll hate the one or despise the other - which is quite clear in the words mentioned in praise of Darwinian evolution. The more it gets praised, the more the one True God gets despised as useless and a lover of pain, suffering and death.
Except that the bible teaches clearly that God created everything in 6 days - Genesis 1, Exodus 20:8-11 and Exodus 31:17.
So there wasnât any âevolutionâ that happened anywhere.
The only evolution that is so intelligent as to create all of biological life as we know it is another god - the one the atheist has to bow down to because he doesnât have any other. Itâs such a shame to see people who profess to be followers of Christ bow down to the same god - denying the words of the Christ they profess to follow. Christ said clearly He made them male and female at the beginning - no evolution required. He also said that just as in the days of Noah people will be going about their normal lives completely ignorant or unwilling to acknowledge the one true God and instead clinging to the gods of the world around them - until they were all swept away. He likens His second coming to those days - a day of reckoning and judgment - a singular, cataclysmic event that marks the end of the world as we know it - for ALL people all over the world. So why would he make such a comparison with what theistic evolutionists describe as a myth?
If you deny the global flood you also deny the final day of judgment that is coming because Jesus has basically made the judgment that is to take place of the same import.
A belief in darwinian evolution is basically the invention of another god - the essence of idolatry. There is simply no other way to put this.
AS I understand it from the latest research, most changes do not happen at the DNA level but are more related to epigenetic factors and methylation. It is very rare for the genetic code to be changed at all, but rather the activation or deactivation of functionality within the genetic code that happens from the outside.
Thus one can see that that for the most part, the variation and adaptation was already present in just about all biological families, it just required the right conditions or timing to be enacted upon.
There is NO darwinian evolution required.
Besides this - the DNA code could not have arisen by blind chance of random physical and chemical processes whatsoever. The knowledge buried in the arrangement of the constituent parts just cannot be created by purely materialistic processes. Intelligence is required to create that knowledge. The code requires a decoder to function. A decoder means only one thing - Intelligence.
In terms of your first point, while the importance of DNA change is probably overstated, to say that there is no difference between different species is also not correct.
Darwinism is not correct, but this does not mean that ID or YEC is right Each has serious flaws as well as strengthsâŚ
Prode, youâve completely missed my point here. It seems that youâve got this idea of evolution as being the antithesis of design so firmly entrenched in your mind, that you canât even hear me saying that it isnât. The information for the existence of these programs comes from a designer â from people, of course. The knowledge/information/code doesnât arise from purely physical/chemical/materialistic processes. It is designed for a specific purpose with a specific goal in mind. The whole point is that I am talking about Darwinian evolution as a tool for design. As used by NASA and Google.
Did God do it that way? The physical evidence strongly suggests that He did. If you have a problem with that, by all means go for the omphalos hypothesis instead.
This analogy is invalid. Random junk flying about in a hurricane is merely a random process. It does not have any kind of non-random filter such as that offered by natural selection.
Fortunately for Christianity that is not true. The three passages you cite are connected to the justification of the Jewish Sabbath on the seventh day. The Deuteronomy version of the Decalogue is identical to that found in Exodus, except for one significant change. This justification is replaced by one based on the Exodus, which seems more historically accurate.
As you know The Sabbath was a sensitive area of conflict between Jesus and His critics. In fact Jesus denied that God the Father and God the Son rested on the seventh day (John 5:16-17,) contradicting Genesis 2:2. You also know that the Christian day of worship is on the first day, not the seventh, contradicting cosmology of the six day creation and the Decalogue.
So we must look beyond the OT to the NT to see what the Bible says about Creation. The best source for this is John 1:1-3, which says that God the Father created the universe through God the Son, the Logos, Jesus Christ. Since Jesus said that God is still creating and God the Son did not send the Son to Abraham, but waited some 2,000 years until the world was ready for Him, it seems to me that one can make an excellent case that the Bible testifies to the fact that life has evolved on earth.
Also of course the fact that God the Father created through the Logos, Jesus Christ the Logos, Godâs Rational, True Word, means that God would not create the universe that is a lie, that it appears to be much older than it really is.
Inherited changes are almost always changes to DNA. Changes that happen during an organismâs lifetime are almost epigenetic and other regulatory changes to that DNA.
Youâre conflating two quite distinct things here. The origin of the information-handling system of all life is unknown. There are reasons to think it had a natural origin, but they are no more than suggestions. Most of what weâre interested in when it comes to evolution, however, happened long after the origin of that machinery which is shared by all life. And itâs quite clear that Darwinian evolution can and does produce large amounts of new information.
I think the evolution of such conversations often gets stuck in a local optimum, so to speak . That surely makes the result look less intelligently designed than it could have been.
We are special because we have history. Other creatures rely on us for their history.
DNA seems as God Given as you might wantâŚit is one handed. The enantiomorphic argument of non-racemization (the single handness) of DNA molecules is one of the major unexplained issues of science and is said to be the product of a random event. Maybe notâŚif the light that showed itself to the world was polarizedâŚwould that affect the chirality of sayâŚDNA? Look up to the sky through two polarized sunglass lenses and you will see that the sunâs light is polarized. Isnât there someplace in Genesis that talks about light? There is some scientific speculation to behold regarding this issue.
SheeshâŚitâs disturbing to stumble onto these notions eisegetically. Its fun though.
. That surely makes the result look less intelligently designed than it could have been.