Science Deprived Whackaloon Creationist Writings From Down Under

_{February 9, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The article I link to below was written by a creationist and published on a creationist website. The abysmal lack of knowledge about molecular biology is exposed in it. I present it for entertainment purposes only…

Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darwinism

by Alex Williams
JOURNAL OF CREATION 21(3) 2007

Comments

Dave, You are a scoundrel, and that's one of the main things I like about you. The notion that the stuff presented in this paper can be accounted for with silly 19th-century speculation -- based entirely upon hideous and thoroughgoing ignorance about how living systems work -- could only be taken seriously by people who are living in a fantasy world, completely divorced from the reality of real science and logic. It doesn't take a Ph.D. to figure out that shooting bullets into a computer can't make it work better, no matter how much time is allowed, yet that is what the Darwinists ask us to believe.GilDodgen_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

by the way, that is a great article. :)van_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

dave: "I didn’t quote anything from the article beyond the source, title, and author for a good reason. If you read the article I think you’ll understand the point I’m making." Alright, fine. I didn't mean to come off sournding rude, but I've had my chain yanked too many times by evolutionists, who so often will point to a multi-paged paper and say, "see, there's the evidence." Meanwhile, I'll read through the whole paper, searching endlessly for their 'evidence' and it never appears. I suppose one of my pet peeves is wasting my time searching for someone else's point, or worse, guessing as to what it is.van_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

After skimming this article, all I can say is: wow. Now I can see what the fuss is all about. The author managed to put it all together in a way that finally made sense to me. I'll have to re-read it a few times, but I can imagine that dyed-in-the-wool Darwinians will do their level best to stop high school and college students getting hold of "big picture" articles like this one. Personally, I believe that the ID movement should focus more on DNA and less on technical issues like irreducible complexity, where the waters get muddied very quickly with scientific claims and counter-claims. The average person reading about recent discoveries regarding DNA cannot help but realize that the way in which the DNA molecule processes information is orders of magnitude smarter than anything scientists could have dreamed up, had they been asked to design a self-replicating molecule. Something that our best scientific brains are unable to design and are struggling to even describe can only be described as a manifestation of some sort of Intelligence. By the way, Dave, here's a link you might be interested in: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7873294.stm . I liked the heading for your post, by the way.vjtorley_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

We software developers have always been bewildered that an organism as complex as a human can be coded in a few gigabytes of code. The idea that we can be coded with 95% of that code being non-functional "junk" is even more baffling. Discovering that the code is somehow unfathomably intrecate makes a lot of sense. Boy my code would be cool if it could run forwards and backwards, if I could have interlocking functions, and if the average line of code was used in an average of 5 unique functions. DNA as the product of a mind far advanced from my own makes far more sense than DNA as the product of an extremely simple evolutionary algorithm that spontaneously came into being.bFast_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

van:
I gotta tell you…I haven’t read this article yet, but quite honestly it’s extremely irritating to hear how “abysmal” something is without getting even a simple explanation of what exactly is so absymal.
Honestly, after reading the article I have concluded that DaveScot is speaking solidly tongue-in-cheek.bFast_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

It's 7 pages long. A quote would be ideal, if nothing more than to point the discussion...Noremacam_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

Van I didn't quote anything from the article beyond the source, title, and author for a good reason. If you read the article I think you'll understand the point I'm making.DaveScot_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

I gotta tell you...I haven't read this article yet, but quite honestly it's extremely irritating to hear how "abysmal" something is without getting even a simple explanation of what exactly is so absymal. I mean is every word written in that article an "abysmal lack of knowledge?" What specifically do you have in mind? This unsupported assertion stuff is usually an evolutionist tactic, but it's just as irritating and unprofessional and useless when it comes from the other side. Dave, I would suggest that you re-write this post, single out what you find wrong or "abysmal lack of knowledge" with the article, and present it to the group. Heck, I might even agree with you.van_{February 9, 2009
February
02
Feb
9
09
2009
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply