Evolution Solves All Kinds of Problems

Another useful article.

Enjoy.

http://urlbam.com/ha/M0026

In fact it is a repeat of an article posted numerous times.

From "doing my homework" on genetics, the vast majority of mutations that remain in the population are neutral. Do you have quotes from geneticists saying otherwise?

What percentage is "virtually all"? Since they are "harmful and destructive", wouldn't they be removed from the population rather quickly and not really have a hand in causing the potential evolution of that population?

Let's try an example of the problem you believe will stop evolution in its tracks.
There is a population of organisms consisting of 50 million individuals. Let's say that there are 5,000,000 new individuals born each year to that population and 5,000,000 individuals die. There are 10,000 mutations among those new individuals. Over a span of 10 years, all but 2 of those mutations are harmful. 1 of the 2 is neutral and the other is beneficial. How long would it take for the beneficial mutation to spread to 90% of the population?


Exactly how does evolution contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics?


Paleontologists claim that they have found transitional forms. Could you point out a particular one and show how it could not possibly be a transitional?

This would probably require you to define what a transitional form should look like so that we can clearly see that the paleontologists are incorrect in their assessment of the fossils they claim are transitional forms.

Could you go over this in detail? My common sense tells me that if things change a little bit each generation, then we would see a lot of change in 1000 or 10,000 generations. If I take one step toward California each minute, eventually I will reach California. Common sense.

What part of Darwin's theory advocates abortion and euthanasia?
Is it your contention that inappropriate or horrific application of a scientific theory, automatically invalidates that theory? Since E=mc^2 was used to kill thousands at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is the conversion of mass to energy now unscientific and a conspiracy? Is chemistry now incorrect because gunpowder and chlorine gas have killed millions?
Is Christ's teaching incorrect because some believers used His Great Commission as a reason to torture people into professing belief?

Your argument in this regard makes no sense.


You don't think we should breed organisms for particular traits? Basically, if a farmer tries to breed horses for speed or strength, isn't that farmer spitting into God's face by believing that the original horse design wasn't good enough?
Does this mean that dogs are an unnatural organism?


What dietary supplement prevents whooping cough? How about smallpox? Mumps? Diphtheria? Polio?

Why is it that in an industrialized nation like Sweden, where the cleanliness and nutrition are as good or better than the US, did whooping cough, Diphtheria and Polio increase when parents decided to stop immunizing their children?

Immunization is using the body's natural ability to combat disease. Weak or dead versions of a disease are used to get the immune system to gear up and be ready to combat that disease. Have you even heard the phrase "as smooth as a milk maid's skin"? Do you know why milkmaids consistently had that smooth skin?

I guess that leaves dictatorship or anarchy. Which one would you prefer?

Sounds like this is just up your alley.

Please provide evidence that the owners of Time magazine are God haters and have no morals. If you don't have evidence about Time magazine in particular, any evidence that the "research" of your "mind" can provide on any other mass media owners will do.

Does this mean that you believe that the vast majority of mutations is NOT destructive?



Today, we see systems within systems within systems.

For example, the eye, has an iris, internal fluid that consists of feedback systems that control interocular pressure, muscles that most the eye, a socket in the skull that holds the eye, a nervous systems that carries electrical impulses to the brain, perfectly-formed rods and cones in just the right area of the eyes to catch the light coming through the pupil, and outer surface covering, and much, much more interdependent, systematic, detached yet dependent systems that work together to make vision possible.

Now consider that this entire highly-complex system formed again in a perfect mirror image that works with the first system.

Now consider that this happened over and over in the human body in all parts of the body that are symmetrical.

Any thinking person will conclude that these kinds of vast improbabilities simply do not occur.

It's astounding that people still accept this stuff, especially considering that we know so much more than Darwin did.

http://urlbam.com/ha/M0029



Matter settles into its simplest stable form.

Evolution claims that it continues to build in complexity over time.

These are incompatible belief systems.

The 2nd law is established. Is is true science and is constantly observed.

Evolution meets none of this criteria, despite the desperate religious cries of its fanatic fundamentalists.



Darwin claimed that very small changed happened over time.

This is not what we see in fossils. We see sudden systematic changes.

We don't have fossils that meet even Darwin's criteria for transitional forms. None at all. Zero.



And these claims are ridiculous on their face. They are job security and grant-seeking.

This is the unspoken truth among paleontologists.



Your reasoning is childishly simplistic.

If you took one random step over and over, you would never reach California.

Never.

This is a more accurate model.



Your response here is completely nonsensical in the context.

The fact is, evolution boldly states that survival of the fittest philosophies are beneficial for the survival of a "species".

In fact, this very philosophy is used to justify genocide, euthanasia, and even chemtrail spraying today.

Here are links to establish my position:

http://urlbam.com/ha/M002W

http://urlbam.com/ha/M000c

http://urlbam.com/ha/Kz



Again, your conclusions are completely off-base here.

Selective intentional breeding is not a problem. Genetic engineering is.

If you do not yet realize why, I suggest you watch this:

http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=49524&an=128#Post49524



Again, you've bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

Dispelling the lies about vaccines that you've been indoctrinated into is a process that takes a couple hours of scientific study and searching through history and medical journals.

Dr. Tenpenny does just this in her video:

http://herballure.com/vp/strbc



Why do you play such games?

Biblical law provides personal freedom and personal responsibility. This is the law that the United States grew up under and became powerful and prosperous under.

When this law was changed, we began to sink, as we are now.

What exactly don't you understand?

Sounds like this is just up your alley.



Glad to.

Again, this type of research is lengthy, so, since you are inquiring about this subject, I trust you will watch these videos in their entirety.

If you do not, you are obviously being disingenuous.

http://urlbam.com/ha/M002w

http://urlbam.com/ha/M0021

Yes

What does your reply have to do with the question I asked? Stop the diversionary tactics and answer the question.


Which is simpler...Water or Hydrogen and Oxygen separate from each other?

Why? Can't a complex molecule be the simplest stable form of matter for a particular environment? If not, then how does life exist at all? Is God keeping all life alive by constantly putting molecules back together while they fall apart?

Does the Sun violate the 2nd law by making more complex matter out of simple Hydrogen?

Emotionalism used as a debate tactic.

Sorry...I didn't follow that very well, I guess. What part of that actually answered my question?

If they are unspoken, how is it that you know about it? Just wishful thinking on yours, AIG's, Hovind's, and ICR's parts?

However, I would get somewhere with a high probability that I would not wind up in the same place. You conveniently forgot that the theory of evolution does not claim to have a "direction". So the small changes would result in evolution occurring.

What makes the response nonsensical?

Matthew 28:19 and 20: "19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

Should this teaching be banned or considered wrong because overly zealous priests tortured people until they either died or professed belief in Jesus as the Son of God?
Should it be banned because Baptists removed native American children from their homes to turn them into Christians?

Are you so blind that you don't see that something is true whether people abuse that truth or not.

Propaganda. These just show people who abuse the theory. Just like with the Inquisition, the abuse doesn't change the truth.

You're the one who stated that changing the "design" was wrong. How is selective breeding not changing the design?

Diversionary tactic not directly related to the truth or falseness of evolution.

I'm not buying anything from you. You want to tell me something then just write it. I can venture a guess the Dr. Tenpenny doesn't address a single statistic from Sweden that shows the change in autism rates when parents stopped vaccinating (because there was no change) nor does the good doctor address the increase in Whooping Cough and Diphtheria when parents stopped vaccinating. Besides, the video is a red herring anyway. The use of vaccines is not an indicator of the truth or falseness of the theory of evolution. Besides, you didn't answer my question: What natural remedies are there to prevent Whooping Cough or Diphtheria?

That would be a republic.

What law was changed? Is the US no longer a republic? What does evolution have to do with this?

An advertisement for a book. How does this advertisement show that the "mass media" owners are "God Haters"? Seems like the book is about how the founders of the US government were putting things in place to usher in the NWO in 2012.

This show that different religious groups have changed the Bible to closely support their favored beliefs. Are you saying that the religious groups responsible for the New International Version of the Bible also run the mass media in the US? Are the Assemblies of God and other Pentecostal denominations (they prefer the NIV) actually "God Haters"?
Those groups are some of the most vocal objectors to the theory of evolution. So, how is their love of a "false" translation of the Bible an indication that the "mass media" is owned by "God haters" and that the theory of evolution is responsible for the "false" translations of the Bible?

Your logic(?) is dizzying.

The original question is nonsensical and rhetorical. That was my point.

There is no such thing as a beneficial mutation unless you believe that complete, interdependent subsystems complete with feedback modulation systems form in a single mutation.



Evolution contradicts the established law of thermodynamics.

If you think differently, please explain.



Again, the point is that thermodynamics demands that processes stop with balance and simplicity. Life is very complex and regenerative because it is based on machines.

Let me give you an example.

An internal combustion engine works on the bases of an imbalance. This is true of all machines that produce motion.

The imbalance is expressed as the pressure difference between the top of the piston and the bottom, which produces motion.

That fact that the machine works is not evidence that it created itself.

This is -- in essence -- what you're saying.

The machine was created based on a set of rules to product a predictable outcome under a certain set of conditions.

Yes, complex molecules exists, but ask yourself: What happens to them when they are placed outside of their "created" environment.

For example, what happens when a watermelon is disconnected from it's supporting machine -- the plant from which it grew?

It breaks down, not builds up.

This is so simple that people are sometimes inclined to believe that there is something so complicated and terrific about evolution that they must be "missing something".

No people. You're not missing anything.

What you are witnessing when you witness trained professionals express a belief in evolution is the power of money and social pressure.

Both are blinding to the intellect, and all are subject to their seduction.

Know yourself.

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."

—H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."

—Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].




(1) Does the sun produce complex organic molecules? No.

(2) What is the ultimate end of the sun? Simple matter.

Just because a process joints a few atoms together does not means thermodynamics is being broken.

The process is simply following known and well established chemical laws -- laws that follow the 2nd law.

Do you believe the sun violates the 2nd law?



Simply put: No transitional forms exist. The question is nonsensical.

That is -- again -- the point.



They are unspoken publically.

There are many who come out of the profession and admit to what is going on.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."

—Professor Steven J. Gould, Harvard University



Incorrect.

The high probability is that you would end up very near to where you started.

It would be simple to simulate this with a computer program.



This is another nonsensical statement.

"Priests" that torture people are not following the commandment of Christ. They are, in fact, not priests at all.

It would be like saying, a kid bullied and killed another kid because his mother told him to go buy some milk.

Native Americans have benefited greatly from the truth and teachings of Christ. Christians have been generous, feeding and clothing, and educating people the world over.

Don't blame Christ or the Bible for the things that impostors do.

Did you know that an evolutionist killed a little girl?

Your reasoning is plainly nonsensical.



The inquisition is not a Christian event. It is an anti-Christian event.

Christianity has brought freedom and prosperity to many over the centuries.

The inquisition was intended to keep the knowledge of the liberating Bible out of the hands of the people, because the Bible taught that people answer to God only, not to "other men".

Well, these "other men" didn't like that idea, so they has to kill the messenger. So they did. They killed Christ, and now they are attempting to snuff out the liberating knowledge of the Bible.

Ironically, evolution is desperately promoted by the same people who promoted the inquisition.

In short, you are promoting the inquisition. You are on the wrong side fella.

What an incredible irony.

Study.



Selective breeding is not changing the design. It is changing select features within the design parameters.

You have claimed to be an engineer. You should know this.



This is not a tactic.

I was responding to your statement related to the outcome and ethical implications of evolution.

Evolution justifies genetic manipulation.

Why?

Because if the organism was "created" through a process of errors, it's likely that we can improve it.

On the contrary, if God created all things, then it is good just the way it is. In short, don't mess with it.

This is one of the fundamental purposes of evolution: Genetic manipulation ultimately for power and profit.

This philosophy will end in global disaster.

Thanks evolution. Maybe you should have listened to the Christians.

I implore all people to watch this:

http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=49524&an=128#Post49524



Your stubbornness and rebellion are evil, and when you spread your false beliefs, people get hurt. Sometimes they die.

If you would simply humble yourself and listen to Dr. Tenpenny present evidence from refereed medical journals rather than parroting what you were told in grade school, you would not be such a danger to society.

Yes, Linear. I hate to have to be the one to break it to you, but...

You've been lied to.

Wake up.

I emphatically urge all parents who love their children to watch this video:

http://herballure.com/vp/strbc


That would be a republic.[/quote]

You mean like the republic of China.

Or do you mean the USS Republics.

You see Linear, the term republic by itself does not mean anything.

It's the law that is used that matters.

You really do come across as the poster child of the new world order.



Biblical law was changed.

OK. I'll say it again, just for you.

Evolution was created (how ironic) to facilitate the dissolution of the Bible.

The Bible is the basis for a Christian republic.

The creators of evolution hate a Christian republic because power is in the hands of the people. They don't like that. They want the power centralized, like in the "new world order" socialistic system which we are now entering into.

You see Linear, Evolution and the republic are very entangled.

You really have a lot of un-learning to do friend.



Wow, you are really evil.

You know as well as I do that this video contains a ton of FREE information. Yes, the guest is selling a book, but the video is free...

You're welcome, by the way.

Yes, some of the founders of the U.S. were ushering in masonic religious symbols and such. Yet, the U.S. became a republic based on Biblical law.

Unfortunately, the U.S. population has been drugged into apathy by the evolution-believing banking elite; An idealism you are promoting, by the way.

Biblical law brings liberty and personal responsibility.

Evolution-based socialism brings tyranny.

This is exactly why I have no respect for the belief of evolutionists. They know so little about their religion that they actually promote the very things they say they hate.

Another incredible irony.



Absolutely. They are allied with each other.




You have no idea how the world really works.

It's called "infiltration" leading to "controlled opposition".

Infiltration would not work if the infiltrator came in preaching against all of the things that target group believed.

Infiltration is a subtle process leading to controlled opposition.

Controlled opposition is the concept of controlling your enemies camp so you can make sure they are unready when you attack.

Controlled opposition also dampens the blows of the enemy.

For example, Shawn Hannity is a controlled opposition figure.

He says all of the things Christian conservatives want to hear. When CC's hear someone preaching their grievances publically, they tend to listen/watch the show, and then feel better.

When they feel better, they don't do anything politically... Which is precisely the point.

You demotivate the enemy by soothing them emotionally.

Another example is Ron Paul. Besides having been seen giving masonic handshakes in the past, he was the man who completely disarmed the movement to expose the massive electronic vote fraud that is occurring in the U.S.

He could have called a manual recount, but he didn't. The reason he didn't is because several precincts had already been caught altering votes. Had he called for a recount, this vote scam would have been blown wide open.

Paul was "their" controlled opposition man in the right place to dampen the blow of the enemy.

(Sorry Ron Paul supporters. I love ya' and know you're good people. But the truth is, if you want something done right... Well, you know.)

You say my logic is dizzying.

Actually, the web of multilayered lies that we live under today is dizzying. I don't invent this stuff. I just research and report it.

In reality, it is your evolutionary colleagues who keep the simple truth so dizzyingly obscured.

What requires a single mutation to do this?


A statement of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would be
"In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe."
The "system" would be the body of a diploid organism. The organism produces seed cells from the materials it ingests. The seed cells could be randomly affected to have mutations in its DNA. Those mutations could affect the physiology of the offspring organism. If that change in the offspring's physiology adversely affects it's ability to remain alive, it dies. If not, it lives, ingests materials, produces seed cells, and sends that mutation to some of its own offspring through its seed cells. Thus a change in the physiology of some of the organisms occurs within the population of that organism. Voila! Evolution.

Which part of that violates the 2nd law?

No it doesn't. High entropy systems are actually more complex than low entropy systems.

Learn the Otto cycle before you attempt to impart an analogy that requires its use.

No, it's not. I am saying that because the machine works imperfectly, resultant machines are different than the original.

The molecules involved in evolution are never outside their created environment.

If you want to talk about unlikely abiogenesis is, then you will have to also show that the complex molecules were ever outside their created environment.



"Just because I believe there is a vast conspiracy doesn't mean there isn't one."

So Helium with its 2 protons and 2 neutrons is not more complex than Hydrogen with its single proton? Perhaps you should acquaint me with your definition of "more complex".
The Sun is also producing Iron, Cobalt, Iodine, Selenium, Oxygen, Uranium, Plutonium and Fermium along with numerous others. This has been observed by astronomers and the process is well known.

Everything is simple matter or energy. dimethyl-carbonate is "simple matter". Your DNA is simple matter....what was your point.

You said that making complex matter violates the 2nd law, not me.

Are we really going to go here? Maybe this time you can tell me what part of evolution or even abiogenesis violates "established chemical laws". I say that you will not. Instead you will appeal to "common sense" or "complexity". Please don't turn me into a "prophet". Just this once actually reply substantively to the question.

No. However, your blanket statement about the formation of complex molecules without intelligence indicates that you think the Sun violates that law.

I realize that you had a lot to read in the 2 posts where I requested the same thing. So, maybe you misread it both times. Here it is again:

Please take a fossil that has been identified by paleontologists as "transitional" and show what aspects of it prove it to not be "transitional".

Ok. Let's make it simple. There are 8 directions that I can step...North, Northeast, East, Southeast, South, Southwest, West, and Northwest. What is the probability that I will be at my starting point after one step? What is the probability that I will be at my starting point after 2 steps? 10? 100? 1000? 1,000,000? I await the result of your calculations. Just for grins, what is the probability that I will be within a straight line of 100 steps of my starting point after 1,000,000 steps? Admittedly, this is more complex.

Depends on how you are defining "priests". Their church called them priests. In the Salam witch burnings, the presiding "judges" were the religious leaders of that Protestant denomination in the town. Whether they were acting according to Christ's wishes (I believe they were not) is immaterial. The point was:

They were using Christ's Great Commission to justify their horrid actions but that should not make Christ's teaching evil or wrong.
However, you seem to believe that it does since you believe that the misuse of the theory of evolution makes it evil and wrong.
It's your logic not mine.

I didn't. In fact I have stated that Christ is not to blame for the inappropriate actions of those using his statements as an excuse to hurt others. It is your logic that blames Christ for those actions.

So that makes all evolutionists evil? Does it make the theory of evolution evil? Talk about smear tactics. Are you really willing to stoop that low? Is it because you have no real evidence to support your side of the debate?

Did you know that Christian leaders burned several teenage girls at the stake? Did you know that a preacher and his elders caused a little girl to die by withholding her insulin shots? Did you know that the BTK killer was a deacon in his church? What does any of this have to do with the truth or falseness of Christianity? Nothing...that's what!


Pot, Kettle, black.

Doesn't matter. They used a command of Christ to justify it just like eugenicists used portions of the theory of evolution to justify their actions. Bad people doing bad things.

Do you intend to always misrepresent what I said? Which "evolutionists" were involved in the Inquisition? Oh...right....you didn't mean the actual Inquisition...it was just another use of emotionalism to smear your opponent. Refuge of the unprepared.

This from the guy who doesn't know the "laws of chemistry", how the Sun forms complex elements and molecules, the working of an internal combustion engine, or how to glean the point of a simple sentence or paragraph. Irony, indeed!

How far should we take this? God created the germs that cause tooth decay...should we brush our teeth or not? God created that little girl without the ability to produce her own insulin so maybe we shouldn't give her any. Obviously, you believe we should mess with God's creations in the above two cases.

Why do you arbitrarily draw the line at gene splicing?

Right. That's exactly what Darwin was thinking as he put the theory down on paper.

That's right. Jesus said: "Thou shalt not splice genes for therein lies disaster."

Now I'm evil because I don't accept the crap that you are selling. Dr. Tenpenny seems to think that a vaccine that is effective on 33% of the population with minor effects on less than 2% of the population should not be used. I guess if we could prevent 33% of traffic deaths with a 2% chance that some people would get hurt by the method of prevention, that we shouldn't institute that method of prevention. Sure, sounds logical to me

And you say I'm a danger to society?

I thought the Bible was unchanging. Who knew?!!

The U.S. was a Christian republic? That would have surprised John Addams.

And I believe that you're a delusional, paranoid, unlearned conspiracy theorist with no idea how to tell feces from florsheim. Is there some real purpose to be served by our lowering ourselves to insults?

Which of the original laws were based on the Bible? The first amendment to the Constitution perhaps? Which laws that we have now are unBiblical?

Which part of the theory of evolution is about political systems of government? A simple quote from a textbook will do.



Absolutely. They are allied with each other.[/quote]The International Bible Society was founded in 1809. Which mass media companies do they own? You of course have real evidence of this....you know...some reference, records of transactions, contracts...etc?

So, the International Bible Society members are evil God haters.

Other evil God Haters are:
Assemblies of God denomination
Church of God denominations
The Christian Reformed Church
National Association of Evangelicals

among others.

You're really reaching and you must know it.



No entropic systems spontaneously develop complex symmetry, for example.

Again, you're really reaching. You should know that evolution and the 2nd law don't play well together.

I don't know why you people continue to make such ridiculous arguments except that you enjoy expressing what power you have in terms of affecting (or destroying) a working system, like a script kiddy.



You're sidestepping the point.

An internal combustion engine is intelligently designed.

In your examples about cells rising to complexity, you keep attempting to explain this process in the context of a complex environment, but this in and of itself demands intelligence.

In short, as I said, complex systems don't design themselves.

Chemical binding rules are insufficient to do anything more complex than that which the 2nd law dictates.

Do you really believe rocks and water turn to highly-complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing, machines without intelligent intervention?



But the imperfection is a myth to begin with.

This is why there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation.



If you believe abiogenesis occurs (rocks and water self-assemble into very highly complex machines like human bodies with interdependent systems and feedback mechanisms) then you have to believe the previous parenthetical statement.

Asking me to explain how a process DID NOT happen is right on part with some of your previous requests.



This has nothing to do with highly-complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines.

It is illogical to watch a few atoms following simple rules and then conclude that human bodies resulted.

Big difference.

I'm astonished people still belief this stuff.

It's like saying, look, we threw some marbles on the ground and I can that it formed a letter "T". This means that if I do it long enough, it will eventually form a human body.

As I've said all along, known chemical binding rules are complex insufficient to build highly-complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines.



You continue to obfuscate the point with strawmen.

Yes, things are all built from "simple" building blocks. So you conclude that the process of building is simple?

You're way off base.

You seem to confuse yourself by talking yourself into ridiculous beliefs with one sentence concepts.

Sorry, it does not happen. Simple matter does not self assemble into astronomically-complex machines. Chemical binding rules do not permit it. There has to be intervention external to the system: a "Designer".



First, the question is a strawman because evolution does not occur. It can't because it's prohibited by the very rules you say facilitate it.

Second, if you want me to again explain how a process DOES NOT occur, consider that it is your belief and you should therefore explain how chemistry develops symmetry.

You also try to dismiss complexity as a barrier to evolution.

Consider that your belief system is analogous to saying that if you left a computer on with Microsoft Word running for billions of years, it would eventually develop new features.

Astounding.



No it doesn't. Nice try though.



So again, you want me to explain how a process DID NOT happen.

You know that evolutionists redefine the term transitional as "a mosaic of features" because there is no such thing as a transitional form. So they have to alter the definitions of the language to fit their faith (belief system).

It's right there in your face. What are you missing?

http://urlbam.com/ha/M002A

It's a lie man. Wake up.



You are again dazzling yourself with bunk.

This is not a valid evolutionary model.

After 1 million steps, as I said, you won't be where you started, but you would not be very far away either.

A better model would have a 1 million directions and have 999,999 of them make the organism fall off a cliff to it's death.



What a truly delusional statement.

You said...



That's completely untrue, but that's another conversation.

You also said...



Your logic is completely twisted.

Evolution is used properly within context to conduct evil.

Evolution justifies genetic engineering, abortion, war, survival of the fittest, genocide, etc., etc.

In fact, evolution demands natural selection. What does "selection" mean?

It means death. It mean selecting who lives and who dies.

It's not possible to use Christ's great commission to justify anything of the sort.

Once again, your analogy is nonsensical.



A refer to me previous statement.

Your logic is fatally and dangerously twisted.



The sun does not form complex molecules genius (or maybe in your universe).

I don't mind when you steep to personal attacks. It's a sign of desperation.



OK, genius. Let me see if I can help you with these points of life that confound you.



If we followed God's laws, didn't fluoridate water (thank you evolutionists), didn't eat GMO food (thank you evolutionists), didn't put mercury in our mouths and bodies (thank you evolutionists), didn't inject poisons into our bodies (thank you evolutionists), etc., etc., then there would be little or no tooth decay.



Do you not realize that this girl's condition was caused by some type of intoxication that man made?

When you decide to do some homework, you will discover that basically all disease is rooted in toxicity, and it happens that mercury is at the top of the list.

Stop injecting and implanting and spraying mercury and most disease would go away.

Get it straight. It's man-made genius.

Most disease is man-made.

Diseases that are caused by dental and pharmaceutical mercury are treated by paying pharmaceutical companies for treatments.

They create the problem and then they sell you the solution.

Thank they don't know? Think it's an accident?

They do know. The current condition of the world is no accident. It is deliberate. Order from CHAOS is the road we're on, and this activity would never be done by a Christian, yet, when you read their own books, they tell you that evolution is the core of their belief system.

You obviously have not yet developed a complete working world view.



So in summary, the above cases would not exist if it were not for evolutionists.

There is no conscience.

There is no morality.

There is only survival of the fittest.

The astounding irony coming from the engineer genius here is that YOU are actually promoting the very problems that you are accusing me of promoting.

This is Linear and not Linda I'm speaking with, right?



It's a facsimile. I'm not speaking specifically about genetic engineering genius. I'm speaking about this, and all of the wonderful things that go along with this philosophy (thank you evolutionists):

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."

—Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].



Gene splicing is the cause of the upcoming famine (thank you evolutionists).

When billions die from pestilence and famine and all of the myriad of diseases related to the current chemtrail spraying campaign, we will think of the wonder belief system you adhere to and know that you promoted it.

Here are a partial list of diseases that are caused by mercury toxicity. And yes, this is the same mercury toxicity given to use by evolutionists who run government and many large corporations. A Christian would never promote the ingestion of mercury. It is against Biblical law.

* Acne - Opportunistic infections cause by general immune suppression.
* Allergies - Gut wall deterioration via mutated intestinal flora)
* Asthma
* Autism (contrary to popular belief, there is very strong medical evidence linking autism to mercury)
* Nearsightedness & Farsightedness (by altering interocular fluid eye pressure)
* Autoimmune Diseases (through methionine mimicry and other processes)
* Amylotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
* Ankylosing spondylitis
* Arterial Sclerosis Mercury activates an enzyme called phospholipase D (PLD) in cells which line blood vessel walls (endothelial cells). This activation causes the release of phosphatidic acid which damages the cells (2). These damaged cells then accumulate cholesterol-based plaque leading to arterial sclerosis.
* Myasthenia Gravis
* Parkinson's Disease
* Alzheimer's Disease (See Beating Alzheimer's) Quote From Book Review: "He had the mercury removed from his teeth and it did not change things. However,some time later when his gums were x-rayed a tiny sliver of mercury was found in the gum tissue. He had surgery to remove this minute piece of mercury and at the moment of its removal he experienced complete lucidity."
* Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders
* Borderline personality disorder
* Anxiety
* Panic attacks
* Dysbiosis
* Leaky Gut Syndrome
* Acid Reflux - Caused by reduced digestive fluid production.
* Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)
* Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
* Learning Disabilities
* Endocrine-Related Issues
* Aneurysm
* Depression
* Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCS)
* Manic Depressive Disorder
* Hyperacusis (sensitivity to certain sounds)
* Photophobia (sensitivity to light from weak iris response)
* Heart Arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat)
* Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS)
* Rheumatoid Arthritis
* Juvenile Arthritis
* Lupus Erythematosus
* Multiple Chemical Sensitivities
* Environmental Illness
* Chronic Fatigue
* Fibromyalgia
* Sciatica
* Gastritis
* Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS)
* Colitis
* Crohn's Disease
* Sleep Disorders
* Anorexia Nervosa
* Floaters In the Eyes
* Bulimia
* Hypothyroidism
* Yeast Syndrome/Candida
* Uncontrollable Weight Gain
* Hair loss (Balding—Elevated DHT)
* Constipation
* Flatulence (gas)
* Shifted Circadian Rhythm (inability to sleep on a normal schedule)
* Hypoglycemia
* Hyperglycemia
* Multiple Sclerosis
* Immune Suppression (weak immune system leading to frequent general illness or numerous opportunistic infections)
* Tinnitus (Ringing In the Ears)
* Grinding Teeth While Sleeping (Bruxism)
* Insomnia
* Excessive Salivating
* Enlarged Prostate (Elevated DHT)
* Heart Disease
* High Cholesterol
* Elevated Homocysteine (increases risk of heart disease)
* Headaches
* Mole Formation (especially on the neck, underarms, inner thighs, and feet)
* Dementia
* Blood in the Urine
* Nausea and Vomiting
* "Brain Fog"
* Dizziness (loss of equilibrium)
* Short-Term Memory Loss
* Cancer
* White Coating On the Tongue
* Oily Skin (Elevated DHT)
* Shyness
* General Phobias
* Outbursts of Anger
* Feelings of Apathy (especially toward property and personal affairs)
* Suicidal Thoughts
* Social Separation/Isolation
* Feeling of a Lack of Self Worth
* Spider Veins
* Easy Bruising (and other vitamin C deficiency diseases as mercury displaces vitamin C)
* Selenium Deficiency
* Zinc Deficiency
* Vitamin C Deficiency
* Iodine Deficiency
* Magnesium Deficiency
* Elevated Blood Calcium
* ...and many more.

Thank you evolutionists!



How absolutely hypocritical of you, and yes: Evil.

You refuse to listen to her evidence from peer-reviewed medical literature. Then you misquote her demonizing her in the eyes of people who may have otherwise listened to her evidence.

Now, these who believe your and use your slander against her as a reason to NOT listen to peer-reviewed medical literature may have autistic children and develop any of the myriad of disease that are listed above.

How evil.

You won't listen to her, then you slander her and are making yourself an psychological hindrance to those who may otherwise learn how to properly protect their children.

You must look in the mirror and ask yourself which side you're really on.

By rebelliously and intentionally ignoring her warnings (from peer-reviewed medical literature -YES the entire DVD I gave you a link to is taken from peer-reviewed medical literature) YOU are potentially hurting people.


(2 Peter 3:1-18)

Your religion is dangerous to society, but it's exactly what the new world socialists want you to believe.

Remember, when they offer that pretty tattoo...

||| | || || ||| ||||| ||| |

Make sure you get it on the right hand so it's most convenient for shopping.



As I said before, the forefathers were mixed in their belief, but this republic did become based in Biblical law, and prospered as a result.



It was not intended as an insult.

It is a fact.

The statements you are making and the way you are (either intentionally or unintentionally) twisting truth is evil.

A person is called evil because their perform evil.

You are performing evil.

Therefore, you are evil.

This does not mean there is no hope for you. All Christians have done evil things in their lives. But you seem to be doing them deliberately.

You twisting of logic and slander is hurtful and dangerous to people.

As far as me being delusional and paranoid...

That's fine if you want to believe that.

The truth is that you are afraid that I may be right. You are fearful that I actually have done my homework (which I have) and that 5 billion people may actually die from chemtrail spraying (and other evil acts of these monsters) in the next few years.

You are too afraid to face that fact that Dr. Tenpenny and the peer-reviewed medical journals that she teaches from may cause you to have to face that fact that God was right all along and that evil controls the world.



Once again, YOU are calling the kettle black. YOU are afraid.

Instead of name calling and character malfeasance, perhaps you will consider humbling yourself and learning the truth of these things so you don't hurt others by spreading the gospel of Linear.



Do you honestly not know this.

You claimed to be a Christian. Are you?

Biblical law is based on the concepts of personal responsibility and liberty. English common law (as I previously stated) is based on Biblical law and American law is based on English common law.

Is there anything here you disagree with?

If you are lacking knowledge of these things, just let me know and I'll gladly explain them to you in more detail.



What part of any ideology is not political?

A single example will do.



Again, you are taking a rebellious, slanderous approach to this information that obviously causes you to be afraid.

First, this is a trans-generational conspiracy.

Second, many large organizations have been taken over in the past 100 years.

Third, instead of telling me that I have no evidence for this, why don't you make sure you continued to avoid the videos and resources (like Dr. Tenpenny's lecture and references) that I have posted in the Bible forum and kindly provided for you on this website.

This way, if you don't listen to these referenced videos, you can remain willfully ignorant and can attempt to continue to avoid the responsibility that accompanies liberty.

This way you can continue to call me ignorant with a clear conscience (because you don't know any better).

This way, you can accept the mark and then tell God that you didn't know.

Why is chemistry not considered evil when people use its principles to perform evil but evolution is considered evil when people use its principles to perform evil?

Because evolution is a lie.
Chemistry is not.

Lies are evil.
Seeking for truth (chemistry) is not.

Here's an example.

A man using a hammer to commit murder does not make the hammer evil.

Unjust weights are evil.
(Weights and measures used in measuring wheat in the marketplace, for example).


See how simple that was.

You mean tooth decay didn't exist before Darwin's time? The mummies from Egypt seem to differ with you on this point.

There were no diabetics before Darwin's time? How do you know this?

No one was nearsighted or farsighted before the Theory of Evolution was proposed?

Wow! I mean...wow!!

Russ, you must surely realise that you are making evolution a scapegoat for everything you think is wrong with the world. You seem to think this is crystal clear. It's honestly insane -- evolution is responsible for fluoridating the water? I suppose you'd also believe it was responsible for the hole in your shoe or your internet connection going down.

We are talking about a scientific process. It does not give us guidance for how to live any more than a volcano erupting or a flower growing. It's simply what we observe occurring. It's clearly your unwillingness to fit both this and a literal Bible into your belief system that is causing problems. Many Christians such as Linear have worked out ways to do this. I'm quite astounded that you are labelling him as evil. You must really be worked up.

Strawman.

I didn't say that. You are inferring this only because I gave only modern examples.

People did things wrong even before the 20th century. Can you believe it?!!



Same point as above.

Much, much less because less disobedience.

Diabetes can be caused by mercury. Bottom-dwellers contain much mercury.

God said don't eat bottom dwellers.

See, if you only would have studied your Bible... "Christian".




Same response.

You see linear, it's all about obedience.

God told us not to do certain things because they are bad for us. When we do them, we get hurt or sick.

You see linear, God knows best.

Previously you used the evil that men do as evidence that evolution was evil. Now you say that the evil done by men using a particular principle is not important in determining the worth of that principle.

Why the change in tactics?

No I did not.

I was speaking about the evil that evolution causes.

Different context.

Too complicated for ya'?

I'll tone it down a bit

Paul also said that believers can eat anything.

See Romans 14:14....Christian!!!

Maybe

Why is evolution the cause of the evil done using its principles but chemistry is not the cause of evil done using its principles?

No he didn't. You don't know your Bible... um, er, fella.

You need to study more.

This should help:

http://www.pointsoftruth.com/foodlaw.html

Lies are THE CAUSE of evil.

Evolution is a lie
(true) Chemistry is not.

What people believe affects how they act.

Evolution is a BELIEF (a false religion) and therefore causes people to err when they believe it. It is a trap that catches people. It is evil in and of itself.

Chemistry is not a cause of evil. Chemistry is simply a tool -- a hammer if you will. How one applies that tool is their choice (liberty) and therefore their responsibility.

They can use it for evil or for good. It is inherently neither.

However, if someone tells you that sniffing ammonia and chlorine will help you, that is not chemistry. That is a belief system that is a lie. It is the lie that is evil.

If someone tells you that amalgam fillings don't damage your body, that is a lie and is harmful. The person telling you this BELIEF about amalgam fillings is not telling you chemistry. They are telling you a lie. The lie (false belief system) is evil.

Evolution is a belief system.

Any belief system must have supporting evidence to be credible.

Since evolution is a complete, lie, evidence must be fabricated to give it the appearance of having support.

We see artifacts of this fabrication throughout the history of the promotion of evolution.

It is impossible to use truth to do harm. Harm only comes when a lie is injected into the chain of logic

For example, a pharmaceutical company says that GM seed will help the farmer. The farmer, knowing that he has a responsibility for producing edible and healthy food asks if the GM corn will be healthy. The pharmaceutical company says yes, and they have produced false evidence to "prove" it (this is a true story).

This is where the lie is injected into the chain of logic. It is the origin of harm.

Pain is evidence of harm. Harm is evidence of a lie.

This is touched up in one of my favorite Bible verses:



Read "torment" as "pain".

Of course, there is a lot more here, but the concept is "touched".


You should also note that this is exactly the order of events in Genesis.

(1) A lie was told.

(2) The lie was believed.

(3) The lie was acted upon.

(4) Harm resulted (the curse).

(5) Pain ensued (suffering comes from sin, sin is disobedience -disbelief- of the truth, truth is the commandment of God, therefore, the Bible concludes that all suffering comes from sin).


Don't ya' just love a spontaneous Bible study!

I read it and he makes some strained connections.

Regardless my position is based on Romans 14:14


This rabbit trail is a distraction and I will not walk down it anymore. Start a thread in Bible Study if you want to continue in this vein.

Back to the main question: Why do you consider evolution the cause of evil done following its principles but do not consider chemistry the cause of evil done following its principles?

You can believe whatever you choose, but be careful. If you belief a lie, harm and then pain will ensue.

God's commandments do not contradict themselves. Therefore, Romans 14 cannot be interpreted the way you feel it should.

Also, the wordage is very precise in that verse, and you have to keep it in context. I would recommend reading a wide variety on the subject and you may eventually catch on.

Paul is not contradicting the Law. The key is to take the entire thought in context. I'll leave that to you as homework.

You have not shown evolution to be inaccurate much less shown it to be a lie.

You have assumed evolution to be evil because men have used its principles for evil. You then used that assumption of evil to declare it to be a lie. Now you are claiming that since it is a lie, it is the cause of the evil that men have done using it. A bit circular, isn't it?

Maybe we should go back to you showing it to be inaccurate. After that you can show intent to deceive on the part of evolutionists. If you can convincingly show both of those then I will be persuaded that you are right.

Let's start with showing evolution to be an inaccurate representation of how life on Earth became so diverse.

You stated that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Sticking with that, exactly how does the changing of DNA in a population violate that law?

As simple as it gets...

Lie = Evil

Evolution = Lie = Evil

Chemistry = Truth = Good



If I say, "Sniff glue, it's good for you" That is a lie, so it's evil.

If you use chemistry to make soap, and the soap is not harmful, then the soap is good because it is helpful.

If you use chemistry to soap, and the soap is harmful, then the soap is evil because it is based on a lie because the understanding when ones uses soap is that it is helpful. Instead, if it is harmful, then there is a lie (being believed) in the chain of logic.

The chemistry is not evil. The lie that created the soap is evil. The person perpetuating the lie is evil.


There is an order of things:

(1) Truth
(2) Belief
(3) Action

Nothing on level 1 is evil.
A hammer is level 1.
Chemistry is on level (1)

Evolution is level 2. It is a belief system based on evidence. The problem is that the evidence is false, that is, it is a lie -- it is evil.

An lie can be used to spawn other lies.

If the below belief is false...

(2) Belief -> conclusion -> conclusion -> ...

The resulting conclusions MAY be false as well.

So, evolution looks like this:

(1) Truth ->
-> Truth is twisted (yes the fossils are transitional) = lie
-> (2) Resulting belief: Transitional fossils help prove evolution ->
-> (2) Spawned Belief -> We are all animals
-> (2) Spawned Belief -> There is no God
-> (2) Spawned Belief -> There is no accountability
-> (2) Spawned Belief -> I won't get in trouble
-> (2) Spawned Belief -> I can do whatever I want
-> (2) Spawned Belief -> "Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law." -The Book of the Law --Crowley. This is the base philosophy of satanism and a cause of societal chaos and is therefore being used by the NSO cartel to usher in their new order. (order from chaos)
-> (3) Action (based on false belief) -> I can rob and steal
-> (3) Action (false Belief) -> I can kill
-> (3) Action (false Belief) -> ... (anything goes) After all, it's just evolution in action.

In this case, the foundational harm (evil) is the lie between step 1 and 2.

Again, Chemistry cannot be evil because it is level 1. Nothing on level 1 is evil.

Evolution is on level 2. It is an evil belief system. It causes harm and chaos, etc.


And yes, Satanism officially and publically accepts evolution as the origin of mankind.

Not true. I have presented much evidence on this system that it is a lie.

Whether or not you accept the evidence is your responsibility.



Are you even reading my posts?



Completely untrue. My reasoning is completely linear.

I'll let me posts in this thread speak for themselves.


Sure, but here's the problem.

Since evolution is a manufactured hoax and since there are massive teams of people (without either deluded or without consciences) on payroll to support it, they invent very convincing fake evidence.

So, this makes it more time-consuming to sort through the truth and lies.

At the end of the day, this is the ultimate problem.

Most people are not interested in truth. They are interested in emotional or physical pleasure or satisfaction. These things have become their blinding "idols".

These people, when confronted with conflicting "evidence" strongly tend to choose the "evidence" that is more emotionally satisfying to their desire.

Since God commands self control, moderation, and other things that don't naturally please the senses, people tend to pick and choose the evidence that implies liberties rather then restraint, a "do what thou wilt" philosophy.

This is called "being blinded by your desires". It's a "love is blinding" kind of thing.

It takes a spiritual (intellectual) person to be able to rise above their own desires and be able to discern the true evidence from the lies.

This is the world we live into today. This is why the powers-that-be have flooded the world with toys and pleasures. Because these things blind people, and when people become blind, they can no longer follow truth, and are eventually cut off from God, which is the evil hierarchy's whole purpose in this dispensation of time: Separate the children from the Father.

So the bottom line Linear is this:

If you want truth, go find it. Christ said you'll find it. (Seek and ye' shall find). If you don't, then just keep avoiding all of the resources that I have offered.



Another strawman.

Simply stated, all matter settles to it's simplest stable form.

Human bodies are very complex, symmetrical, sexual (different organisms having perfectly compatible reproductive systems), self-reproducing machines.

The simple chemical binding rules that we know about cannot possible cause the self-assembly of rock/minerals into these astounding, symmetrical machines, because the minerals would rather settle to a simple, stable state.

Untrue. None of that has been observed. It's been worked out on paper, and they think it happens in reality. I haven't worked it out myself, but I note that the thought is a mighty convenient one for the Godless. In any case, it's never been observed.

That's a great point.

Nevertheless, even if the sun did produce a few different elements on its way to burning out, it demonstates simple chemical binding properties at work.

It's not the same (mythical) process that would self-assemble highly-complex, symmetrical, sexual (different organisms having perfectly compatible reproductive systems), self-reproducing machines.

Not the same at all.

I really believe that most people with common sense can see this.

Maybe too simply stated. Please define simplest stable form. What are the parameters that describe "simplest stable form"?

Can a compound of iron and oxygen be the "simplest stable form"? How about ethanol or sugar...are they "simplest stable forms"? Amino acids? Proteins? Lipids? RNA? DNA? Are they in their simplest stable form?

What is it about the "settling" of matter into its "simplest stable form" that prevents DNA from changing within populations of organisms?

But we weren't writing about abiogenesis. This discussion is about evolution. If you wish to discuss abiogenesis and the ramifications of your "simplest stable form" chemical law on that possibility, I suggest you start a thread on that subject. I could start a thread on it if you would like.

For this thread, I would like to keep the subject narrowly focused on evolution.

Your "common sense" leads you to believe that the fusion process occurring on the sun, which turns Hydrogen (an element) into Helium (a different element), is following "simple chemical binding properties".

What type of bond is used to combine the 4 Hydrogen atoms so they form the Helium atom....Ionic, Covalent...Aromatic?

I'll give a hint: Chemical bonds occur in the electron shells of atoms and an element is defined by the number of protons in its nucleus.

The problem occurs long before that. Evolution is a myth that cannot get off the found, much less to DNA.

When you begin with rocks and water, simplest stable forms are, well, simple.

More complex forms are only "stable" when they are in a complex environment. But how do you get a complex environment from rocks and water?

You can't, unless, of course, these environments are intelligently created.

So again I say: Evolution cannot even get off the ground.



Of course you would, and you would like to omit many other things as well.

Problem is, all of these subjects are intimately connected.

Evolution attempts (poorly) to explain cell to man, but what about rock to cell.

Creation solves all of these problems, not only elegantly, but with sufficient evidence.

When studying, we mustn't omit things, even if it feels right.

Fine, let's add abiogenesis into the mix as start with it.

Can a compound of iron and oxygen be the "simplest stable form"? How about ethanol or sugar...are they "simplest stable forms"? Amino acids? Proteins? Lipids? RNA? DNA? Are they in their simplest stable form?

Ok. Starting at "ground" level, what is it about the "settling" of matter into its "simplest stable form" that prevents formation of amino acids?


1. Volcanic activity.
2. Dissolving of elements and compounds into the water.
3. Discharge of static electricity (Lightning).
4. Water current flow caused by heating by the Sun.
5. Catalytic effect of mineral substrates.

I never said they weren't intelligently created. Right now, the differences between YEC's, You, and me, is when and by what method that intelligent creation occurred.

Without using the Bible and without using any direct reference to evolution or abiogenesis, please identify the positive evidence for the direct and recent creation of life on Earth.

The simplest stable form is affected by the environment. You have stated this yourself previously.

The problem with your claim is that the environment that supports more complex stability is itself, complex.

So, how do we build an environment -- a system -- that permits the stability of complex molecules?

Simple:

Intelligently.

Complex environments do not build themselves. If you attempt to claim that they do, then you are back to square one trying to explain HOW complex systems come into being.

"Chicken or the egg?"

You simply cannot ignore the problems with your claim.



The environment they are in prevents it.

Any "natural" environment has entropic turbulence. The same natural laws that facilitate the binding of certain atoms together may later tear them apart.

This is not unlike the scenario you mentioned earlier with the 8 directions being selected randomly, except that it is not all about randomness because when certain conditions exists the likelihood of other reaction is not a constant.

In fact, more complex molecules have a higher probability of becoming simpler while simpler molecules have a higher probability of becoming more complex.

So your "random direction" model would better fit the real world if probability always favored the point or origin, or some reasonable point close to it.

So, this action does not facilitate increasing complexity in the long run. Instead, it favors whatever its SIMPLE environment favors, which is simplicity.



First of all, none of these facilitates the breaking of simple binding laws. They only change the environment.

Lava cools. Water stabilizes. Lightning is in itself a stabilizing activity, and though it does facilitate a change in some of the base rules for a moment, when the lightning is gone, the previous stabilizing rules are back in effect. Sunlight and other catalytic effects are no different.

This logic is like saying that the ebb and flow of a tide on a beach will form increasingly complex structures. What happens in the real world is cyclical, not linear.



The biggest problem I have with evolution (regardless of the proposed purpose) is the lack of evidence supporting it, and the mathematical improbability (impossibility) of it.

On the other hand, it seems that creating environments just to facilitate a reaction to create a substance as a building block for another environment (or process) and then creating another environment to facilitate another process (and so on) is an extremely inefficient way to create.

The fundamental question is the integrity of the Bible.

That is an important question.



Sudden appearance.

True. But how complex does it need to be to produce the first complex molecules? As complex as an underwater volcanic rift?

Can those first complex molecules be stable enough to continue existence outside of the complex environment? Amino acids have been found on comets and meteorites. The meteorites and comets did not have complex environments at the time the amino acids were found yet the acids endured. That fact alone shows that complex molecules can continue to exist outside of the complex environment in which they were formed.

It may. It may also make complex molecules that are not so easily torn apart by a change in environment.

The 8 random directions was a scenario for evolution but it can still apply here. If there were 8 random things that could happen to a molecule and one of them was to move to an environment that was not going to break it apart then the millions/billions of molecules made in a complex environment would have at least some that would "survive" (for lack of a better word).

Not if one of the "directions" was an environment not hostile to the molecule but outside of the "complex creative" environment. The buildup of the complex molecules (increase solution concentration) in the subsequent environment would actually change it such that other reactions might occur to make even more complex molecules.

Which you said could facilitate the building of complex molecules.

Certainly these environments change but not after building complex molecules. Besides an underwater volcanic vent can be around for many thousands of years. How many complex molecules could it make in that time? Billions per day?

Complex structures are made by the tides. Caves, rock formations, tide pools....

You say this but have not actually supported it with any math calculations at all. Could you reference a statistical calculation somewhere on the web.

Not really. Industrial chemical processes are performed in just that manner. Chemicals are mixed in one environment to a particular concentration and then moved to another environment where the high concentration of the new compound coupled with the new environment causes more complex molecules to be built. These methods are profitable for the chemical company, so they are obviously not inefficient.

Only if you have to have Genesis be literal history. There are stories in other parts of the Bible that are not considered true yet they have value as life lessons.

Please expound on this. Sudden appearance of all species at the same place in the fossil record just like it says in Genesis?

And what complex thing do they form?



Um... OK. You mean meteorites that have been sampled and tested on Earth.

And, you believe this with blind faith, right? Where's the evidence?



Maybe, but rarely, and never immune to decomposition, and when you add time to the equation, the probability of decomposition increases greatly, which is why you need a stable, complex environment.

Again, chicken or egg.



OK, but you still need the complex environment.

Chicken? Egg?



Great, but those are not real world conditions.

Rocks and water with lightning and wind, etc. working within the confines of chemical binding rules do not provide any mechanism to produce a linear transition of complexity.

Again, complexity will be broken down by the same electrical flow that creates it, by the same acid that facilitated it, by the same base that promoted it.

In short, there is a strong, everlasting favor toward simple stability, and we just cannot get away from that.

Even passing a molecule from one environment to another does not increase probability of increasing complexity in the long run because the environments are suffering the same consequence as the molecule in question.

Again, this type of system simply cannot get of the ground, so to speak, unless there is an external intelligence. The fundamental rules do not facilitate it the molecule or the environment.

If you look at an environment such as a machine (human body), which does facilitate predictable repeating complexity (a pure example could be reproduction), you're still left with the chicken and the egg problem.

This problem that I am pointing out is precisely why the powers-that-be have now invented panspermia. This concept is not only being depicted in more and more movies (especially those geared for children -- "get 'em while they're young) but there are some scientists exploring it on an intellectual level.

Mission To Mars
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0183523/

This is the only scenario that will satisfy most of the myriad of problems with abiogenesis, but not evolution.

This theory is now being expanded to actually claim that humans were genetically modified by aliens and brought to Earth.

This claims satisfies both problems (abiogenesis and evolution).

Unfortunately (for them), it presents a new problem: Infinite regress.

In other words, where did the aliens come from -- evolve, etc.?

The only view that solves all of these problems is creation, but that view scares a lot of people because it implies personal responsibility, and many people don't like that idea, so they keep looking for (or inventing) evidence to the contrary.



Which process builds a complex molecule, and how complex?

Complex enough to reproduce?



And those molecules move off into cooler water and break back down through natural entropic processes.



Intelligence implies repetition.

Do you see letters of an ocean-created alphabet formed on the shores spelling out intelligent messages over and over?

No.

You only see random patters of erosion, breakdown, and endless shifting, and all this well understood by the fact that binding rules do these things without any additional intelligence.

Water breaks down rock to form caves. Does this mean the water is intelligent?

These structures are not intelligence. They are the natural, predictable result of natural processes based on simple rules.



I have supported it right here on this forum, and you were there...

http://urlbam.com/ha/M0024



...If you judge efficiency as a ratio between complexity and profit margin.

Again, my point stands. This is a very inefficient way to create.

These companies employ intelligently-designed complex processes to produce profitable chemicals. This example does not scale to the complexity of biological organisms.

But all this is mute. God can create however He wants. We're just trying to discover how He did it.

The evidence I see strongly suggests that evolution and abiogenesis had nothing to do with it.

There was an original creation a long time ago, then new things were created about 6000 years ago. Thus, we see strong evidence for both, just as we would expect, and just as the Bible states.

http://urlbam.com/ha/M0020



Things in the Bible that are parables (symbolic) are clearly so. There's no indication that the creation account is parabolic.

The taking of the mark of the beast, for example, is clearly literal, although many mistake it for a parabolic example.

Everyone is at a different place in their understanding of the Bible.



Not sure what you're missing.

It's clear that life suddenly appeared roughly the time the Bible said it did.

Of course, there is great debate over this, but this is to be expected because there are those standing to profit greatly by discrediting the Bible. Just as there is great debate over the cause of autism, but again, there are people who stand to profit greatly by discrediting the evidence that autism is caused by mercury.

Nevertheless, two people can look at the same evidence and interpret it differently. The problem here that most people don't realize is that one's morality affects how accurately they are able to interpret evidences.

In short, those with an agenda risk misinterpreting the Bible. I took on the Bible, creation, and evolution with no agenda except to know the truth so I could live my life in a way that would best profit from it.

If evolution was true, I would have conducted myself a certain way. If creation was true, I would conduct myself another way. I didn't care which was true so long as I could discover which one it was.

Not having an agenda (predisposition) I was able to interpret the evidence clearly, without bias, and I did.

As this thread got quite a bit of the conspiracy discussion, I think it's a good candidate for this information from Vox Day. Russ, you're may find other places in the forum complex where it's appropriate.

http://www.voxday.net/archive/2006/052206.html


(The article is short. I recommend taking the link)

The idea that there's something in human nature which might prevent conspiracy is contrary to common sense and observation. I can imagine no apology for those who practice blanket dismissal of all conspiracies.

Does nobody remember even Watergate?