Where we created by Religion or Evolution (353)

It's called the theory of evolution.

I know a little, just a little. But there are some great minds on the other side in here, which makes coming here oh so enjoyable.

You like Behe's argument, just not his faith. It is ok, he is used to it.


When he first wrote "Darwin's black box", it was heralded as an incredible breakthrough in scientific thinking. That was until it was discovered he was a Christian. Once he was outed as "one of those", he and his work was rejected. Not on the basis of its empirical value, but simply because he chose to call himself a Christian.

Hope that Military Boot doesn't connect with my Rearend!
But a Common Ancestor definitely sounds more plausible,than a Monkey all of a sudden deciding to become Man.

"peer reviewed articles"?

I think we all agree what that means, don't we?


"your kangaroo court does not match my kangaroo court"

If all species share a common ancestor, we should expect to find protein sequences that are transitional from, say, fish to amphibian, or from reptile to mammal. But that's not what is found at all. Instead, we find that the basic types are molecularly isolated from one another, which seems to preclude any type of ancestral relationship.

But does common code mean common ancestry or common design?

Even though all organisms share a common genetic code with varying degrees of closeness, that code has ordered the amino acids in proteins in such a way that the basic types are in molecular isolation from one another. There are no Darwinian transitions, only distinct molecular gaps. Darwinists cannot explain the presence of these molecular gaps by natural selection any more than they can explain the presence of huge gaps in the fossil record.

I am glad you brought up the flagellum. Is it my understanding that you contend you could pull out several parts of the flagellum and it would function just as well as it does without them? Well, let’s review and tell our readers what we are talking about.

Picture an outboard motor on a boat and you get a pretty good idea of how the flagellum functions, only the flagellum is far more incredible. The flagellum’s propeller is long and whiplike, made out of protein called flagellin. This is attached to a drive shaft by hook protein, which acts as a universal joint, allowing the propeller and drive shaft to rotate freely. Several types of proteins act as bushing material to allow the drive shaft to penetrate the bacterial wall and attach to the rotary motor. The flagellum produces energy not like some other biological systems which use carrier molecules, but by a flow of acid through the bacteria membrane. This is a complex process that scientist are still trying to fully understand. The flagellum’s propeller can spin at ten thousand revolutions per minute. Stop and think about that for a moment. Many modern sports cars can’t come close to that many rpms. The Honda S2000 redlines at 9000 rpms. But that isn’t the most incredible part. The flagellum’s propeller can stop spinning within a quarter turn and instantly start spinning the other way. Try that in a sports car.

Howard Berg of Harvard University called the flagellum the most efficient motor in the universe. It is way beyond anything we could make, especially when you consider it’s size, which measures on the order of a couple of microns (a micron is 1/20000 of an inch). Most of its length is the propeller. The motor itself would be 1/100000ths of an inch. If you study the incredible complexity of the flagellum and how miraculously its parts are perfectly fit together, you will be amazed. Google EDWARD M. PURCELL and you will be able to find out many things about it.

I didn’t even mention the sensory systems that feed into the flagellum and navigates it to food, light, or whatever it’s seeking. It acts like one of those smart missiles that have a guidance system to help them find their target.

All of this, and you contend that it all happened by accident? You wouldn’t dare say that the engine of the Honda was an accident or the guidance system of the missile, but you still contend there was on intelligence required in the flagellum’s development. You say that since you can take away one of several microtubules and still have a functioning cilium, that it proves this was all just one big accident. Of course you might say that it isn’t a accident, but the result of the physical laws governing this world. But it would be unfair for me to ask where THOSE laws came from.

But not nearly as good as intelligent design.

Which is something you simply cannot consider. They have way too much invested in their ideology that they will stay with it until the end (at least some will - evolutionists are jumping ship at an alarming rate). "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future." (Malcolm Muggeridge) So once Darwinists exhaust their ability to adequately defend their own position with unbiased scientific evidence, they typically turn their guns on the intelligent design people. If they cannot make those unintelligent intelligent design people's argument look bad, they will make them look bad.




Micro, not macro. This is not an argument against Micro evolution. We know it exists. But we also know that Micro-evolution provides ONLY speculative evidence that Macro-evolution is real.





Are you talking about what happens when bacteria survive a bout with antibiotics and multiply as bacteria who are now resistance to that antibiotic? Forgive me if this is an over simplification. I try to use simple words. Many people believe you are trying to hide something when you elevate the conversation above that which most are familiar (using words like "pseudogenes and endogenic retroviruses"). It is interesting that the latter bacteria are resistant to that antibiotic because the former bacteria possessed the genetic capacity to resist, or a rare biochemical mutation helped it survive (rare because mutations are nearly always harmful).

Since the sensitive bacteria die, the surviving bacteria multiply and now dominate, Darwinists say that is evidence of evolution.

But here is what this observation really tells us...

The surviving bacteria always STAY bacteria. Micro-evolution.



Or if they shared a common designer.




How so? How could an intelligent designer not accomplish this?

But here is another question,

If all living things have a common ancestor (Man, ape, palm tree, the locust, Venus flytrap, mildew, snakes, bats, the hippopotamus, fungus, peacocks, etc.), then why all the variety?
Where did male and female come from?

If all have descended from that first irreducibly complex life without intelligent intervention, what is your viable explanation for all of this?