Steverino
Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:16) | Darwinists don’t like the origin-of-life topic brought up in the context of the evo/creo debate. To this they will always proclaim that ToE does not attempt to answer the question of life’s origin. Yet if you read any evolutionists’ books or talk to evos on debate forums they will almost always frame the debate as ToE against special creation. At first this may sound like an ok premise, but if you think about it, it’s off base and it's a diversion. Let me explain:
When evolutionists like Richard Dawkins – or any of the rest of them – frame the debate, they will almost always proclaim the debate is between ToE and special creation...(ie.."Goddidit")….YET evos are the first to admit that ToE is not a theory that deals with origin of life. So we have a disconnect: We have theory of biological change (ToE) being pitted not against another theory of biological change, but against a supernatural creation event. This is wrong, wrong, and wrong…In my opinion, the debate should not be between RMNS vs. special creation, but RMNS against a biological alternative to how change happens: In this case, the polar opposite to RMNS is the ability of the MIND/mental processes to bring about beneficial, purposeful heritable change.
But guess what…..Darwinists hate the mind. They never, but never, mention it in the context of evolution because the mind/mental processes is not only non-scientific, but is something that cannot even be defined, much less measured. The mind to evolutionists is like Kryptonite to Superman. You see, what evolutionists know is that in this day and age it’s accepted and even politically correct to bash and mock YECs…and it’s almost getting to that point even with God. However, it’s not quite so easy to bash the brain, mind, consciousness, awareness and other mental processes, which most people in society would admit are darn-near miraculous. So instead of bashing the mind, evolutionists merely ignore it, choosing instead to bash YEC, which is not even a biological theory of change! Talk about the strawmen of strawmen!
Heck, read any book: Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, Darwin, or anyone else, NONE of them talk about the mind, which is the real biological alternative to Darwinism. At most, these people will make some sort of negative comment about creationists or lamarckism. Never is the mind brought up as a possible alternative to RMNS.
So Dawkins and his satellites have successfully pitted ToE against the 6-day Creation story mostly because the 6-day Creation story is (to many people) an unbelievable-sounding event….(by the way, miracles usually are unbelievable-sounding). But Dawkins dares not bring up ToE’s REAL biological opponent: the mind. And in kind, evolutionists have historically refused to test mental processes in animals because they want no part of anything that would contradict their beloved materialism. If the mind indeed controls evolutionary change, then evos’ assertion that mental processes are mere by-products of eons of random physical events is false and thus destroys the whole theory. Sensing/thinking/believing/knowing/being aware can, however, change the expression of DNA -- which, to the chagrin of evos, introduces free will into biology and makes us creators of our own destiny to a certain degree.
Not only that, but the idea that the mind controls biology eliminates the idea that changes in biology are part of a long string of random events that turn creatures into different kinds of creatures over time. Instead, biological change has nothing to do with the build-up of organisms nor the origination of the mind.....which leads to the conclusion that the mind was not built up over time -- and thus must have been created instantly.
http://www.ernestrossi.com/about_p....erience
"We now know that significant life events can turn on genes that lead to the synthesis of proteins, which, in turn, generate new neurons and connections in our brain. Our daily and hourly life experiences, thoughts, emotions, and behavior can modulate gene expression and neurogenesis in ways that actually can change the physical structure of the brain.
This new worldview of the relationships between gene expression and human experience emerging from the Human Genome Project is setting the stage for a profound expansion of our understanding of life.....
...In Chapter 2 we take our first steps in exploring the surprising and little known research on behavioral state-related gene expression: How behavioral states such as sleeping, dreaming, consciousness, vigilance, stress, emotional arousal, and depression are associated with different patterns of gene expression. We learn how a special class of genes called “immediate early genes” can respond to significant life events and psychosocial cues in an adaptive manner within minutes!" |
SS,
Again, you are just wrong. TOE has nothing to do with Origins. Attempt to tie the two are disingenious.
"but against a supernatural creation event."..again, there is no supporting evidence for the supernatural creation event. Not one piece.
Your agrument for the morphology, as you frame it, is laughable. I guess those millions or so with spinal damage just aren't focusing their mental capabilities hard enough for a new spine.
What sad is, all the arguments you post have repeatedly been dealt with here...over and over....and all been debunked.
That is until another Creo comes out here after sniffing the pile at AIG or some other remedial site and thinks they have just discovered the answers to the universe.
--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!
|
