:: Running from the Thought Police ::

:: Thursday, March 17, 2005 ::

Apparently, Ignorance Is Love

::This post is part of the Evolution/ID Correspondence Series::

Or, at least, so says Doug the creationist in response to my last correspondance.

[TheSquire],

My motive is rather plain and simple.... love. You see, belief in evolution has logical consequences. If there is not God, then any behavior is acceptable as long as we don't get caught. Now that is no reason to reject evolution, but your asked my reason for showing people that it is false and that is my motivation, love.

Love of the truth. Love for people to turn from bad behavior and be rescued from the consequences of bad behavior in eternity.

Once again - I do not reject evolution for that reason ( I reject it because it is not mathematically probable), but if there is a Creator and Designer, then we would expect Him to be very orderly - And He is. Mathematically orderly, chemically orderly and morally orderly. When laws of physics are broken, people get hurt. When moral laws are broken, people get hurt.

So my motivation - love.

What's yours? Really?

When you read through the pdf, let me know. Of course there is too much to digest in one sitting, but there are some excellent points there. Also - there is an excellent web site for Creationists "http://www.icr.org"

Of course you realize there are many scientists who are highly trained on both sides of this important issue.

Have you ever read any of them?

I would be willing to buy and ship some of the materials to you - if you would like.
I feel that strongly on this issue.

As far as looking at "too many irons in the fire" as An odd way of conceding my points, but I accept. Why do you read more into that statement that what I wrote? I meant what I wrote. We already have about 5 topics we are discussing. Aren't these enough? There were too many other points for me to sit here get the required information and show you where some of the points are in error. If you really were looking for answers, I would be more than happy to look up each point's answer, but I have 5 children, a job, etc. and life gets very hectic at times to be wasting time for someone who does not want to hear the truth.
You wrote:
RNA either self-assembled, or arose from a proto-RNA.
That's a HUGE leap of faith my friend. Think about how RNA would self-assemble to make DNA! That's like saying the robots on the assembly line at General motors made themselves! Very improbable.

You wrote:
Following a gene duplication event, one copy of the gene (and its product protein enzyme) would be able to mutate away from the original action. If one of the promiscuous catalytic activities that enzyme has actually produces something useful...

But wouldn't the harmful mutations more readily kill the organism than produce beneficial mutations. Again - the vast majority of the mutations are harmful to life. The very fact that you must place your entire faith (and yes - I do mean faith) on the improbability of random mutations producing something of substantial benefit to the organism is a HUGE. The evidence shows that species are dying out in big numbers - one reasons is because of harmful mutations.

If you want to believe that such mutations could produce such wonders in a macro way, you are free to believe it, but it is faith. The evidence of mutations stands against you.
In reference to the enzyme for digestion of dairy products, once again - the example just shows how an enzyme already present is divested into a larger population. It does not show anything beyond that.

Additionally - ID's DO believe in microevolution (what we would call adaptation). What we find impossible is macro-evolution.

You wrote:
"Proving"evolution is done every day by the scientists who use evolution to
further our understanding of the world

Actually, it is not 'proved' but it is just a preconcieved foundation for their thinking. (and a false foundation at that.) Just because a group of people say something - does not make it so. What do you do with all the results that don't fit your model of history? Again - if you would read some of the ID writings and the research they do - you would see what I am talking about. I have tons of files here that I could show you, but again - I do not want to waste my time or yours if you are not interested and so closed minded to anything contrary to what you have believed.

ID does nothing to provide a platform from which further scientific inquiry can be based.

How do you know this? How much have you studies the works of Dr. Henry Morris, Dr. Duane Gish, Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo, Dr. Richard Bliss, etc. I could give you a list of over 50 distinguished leaders in their fields who all are ID's.

I would ask you to go to www.icr.org and click on "Impact Articles" amd look up article #313. Written by Dr. David Rosevear.

I have listed a bit of it here for you......

Each component of a living cell is breathtakingly complex, yet in isolation it cannot survive nor replicate itself. All the parts of the cell are necessary to its functioning and replication. Nothing works until everything works. This has been called irreducible complexity. Even small parts of the components of cells can be unimaginably complex. An example of this is the enzyme adenosine triphosphate synthase, found in all living cells including animals, plants, fungi and bacteria. The elucidation of the structure of ATP synthase won a 1997 Nobel Prize. Every cell contains hundreds of these miniature motors embedded in the surfaces of the mitochondria. Each is 200,000 times smaller than a pinhead. The motor forges a bond between ADP and phosphate to form ATP. The ATP couples with other processes in the cell requiring energy to reform ADP and phosphate. So energy is directed to contract muscles, beat the heart and drive thought processes in the brain, while the products are recycled. At the centre of ATP synthase is a tiny wheel that turns at about 100 revolutions per second and turns out three ATP molecules per rotation. Just to keep us thinking and walking, humans must recycle their own body weight of ATP each day. Each enzyme is composed of thirty-one separate proteins that in turn are made of thousands of precisely arranged amino acids. Take away any one of the 31 proteins and the motor is useless. It could not have evolved. And consider this: the genetic information and RNA plus proteins needed to construct the ATP synthase are in total even more irreducibly complex than the ATP synthase itself. (A car-making factory is more complex than a car.)
© Copyright 2005 copyright 2005: Institute for Creation Research. All rights reserved.

[TheSquire], Also - look up articles #330 & 331

I need to go now.

Again - my motivation is truth and love. What's yours? If evolution is true, then life is pointless and meaningless. Not that I refuse evolution on that basis (again - the probibility is way too high!), but I was wondering about your motivation for this conversation.

Be well my friend,

In His love,
Doug

Hmm, I'm going to have to bring both theology and science to bear on this one (not that I expected otherwise).

UPDATE: My response to this email has been posted here.

:: The Squire 9:36 PM :: email this post :: ::
...