The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Why do evolutionists retard scientific progress?

(See in situ)

GoodSamaritan's picture

Why do evolutionists retard scientific progress?

Because their agenda is more important than inconvenient facts.

I just got through reading Lennox's book, Has Science Buried God. To state that his discipline, or the fact that he is a creationist, has no relationship to his religion or creationism is easily refutable. His arguments from mathematics and logic against evolution and for special creation are clear and extensive.

Your opinion of Dr. Brown's theory or aspects of it is supposed to move me to repentance? Seriously? He made 50 predictions based upon his hydroplate theory, which in turn is based upon the Biblical record in Genesis. You stated, and continue to state - erroneously - that creationism makes no predictions. I pointed out several examples.

Your argument about biologists not making astronomical predictions is a red herring. It should be obvious to the most casual observer that the comparison should be between astronomers who interpret facts from creationist assumptions and astronomers who interpret facts from evolutionary assumptions.

#1 Evolutionist Cop Out - "Besides, the issue of evolution really has little to do with life's origin--only how it changes." The GTE has everything to do with origins. If God created life by fiat as described in Genesis then it did not come into existence through naturalistic means and the foundation of evolution is destroyed.

I don't lay claim to ID membership - I believe the Genesis account is historical, not allegorical. The "similar precursors" part seems to be a reference to the missing transitional forms. This was an argument made famous by Prof. Stephen Gould. The reference to "junk DNA" is not ridiculous at all given that Prof. Richard Dawkins was mocking Christians publicly in 2009 for believing in an intelligent designer who would create genes that do absolutely nothing, or worse, that 95% of our genome might as well not exist. He turned 180 degrees on that opinion just 3 years later after the ENCODE results were published.

Speciation is observable, testable, and repeatable. Changing from one kind into another is not. There are genetic limits to diversity in every kind. All God had to create in the beginning were pairs of the original kinds, or baramins, with built-in capacity for variation. One can create numerous breeds of dog, from Chihuahuas to Great Danes, but they will all be dogs. Breeding them over millions of generations will never produce anything but dogs. Natural selection may result in certain types of dogs better fit for certain environments, but that is merely selecting for a certain combination of existing genes - not adding new information. Mutations + time + chance ≠ evolution. All observed mutations demonstrate a loss of genetic information from the genetic code, or they are neutral.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father