The Day the Music Died

_{Cornelius Hunter
July 16, 2015

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

In the age of on-line entertainment and instant information it was, perhaps, possible to live without knowing about the carnage going on around us, but the video of evolutionist Deborah Nucatola casually and callously explaining the crushing of innocent babies and harvesting their young bodies leaves us forever without excuse. Between gulps of red wine and bites of salad we learn that “a lot of people want liver” and that “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver …” We are also told how to play games with the law so the harvesting of human body parts can proceed efficiently: Read more

Comments

harry and this also: Romans 8:20-21 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope hath the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. i.e. Darwinian theology is based on the presumption that we should already be in heaven and that everything should be perfect and that we do not live in a fallen world. As CS Lewis put it: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianitybornagain77_{July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PST}

Zach
If the claim about being a “spectacular masterpiece” was merely aesthetic, then our question wouldn’t be pertinent, but the term “engineering” implies something more.
Spectacular engineering is part of great beauty. The fact that all humans die does not take away from the marvels of engineering we can observe in them. Can you suggest something that is a greater masterpiece of engineering than a human being?Silver Asiatic_{July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PST}

bornagain77 @20
Dr. John Avise used the fact that mutations are overwhelmingly detrimental ... as a theological argument for Darwinism since, according to the twisted theology of Darwinian reasoning, God would never allow such things as detrimental mutations.
Darwinists are as ignorant of theology as they are of everything else:
Moses said to Yahweh, 'But, my Lord, never in my life have I been a man of eloquence, either before or since you have spoken to your servant. I am a slow speaker and not able to speak well.' Yahweh answered him, 'Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him dumb or deaf, gives him sight or leaves him blind? Is it not I, Yahweh?' --Exodus 4:10-11 As he went along, he saw a man who had been blind from birth. His disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, for him to have been born blind?' 'Neither he nor his parents sinned,' Jesus answered 'he was born blind so that the works of God might be displayed in him.' --John 9:1-3
Here is the thing the Zachriels of this world just don't get: God knows what He is doing. And if they don't believe there is a God, they should realize that they are certainly not God, either. Yet they presumptuously take it upon themselves to play God, deciding who, according to their own perverse, personal prejudices, is good enough to live and who isn't.harry_{July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PST}

Jon Garvey: Never quite understood this as a moral-theological argument when I was in medical practice. Our question concerned a comment about engineering, not morality. Jon Garvey: It has been believed for a good half-century, and evidence confirms, that early miscarriage is a screening process for grossly abnormal conceptions that are incompatible with life. It means that the human replication rate is significantly higher than live births.Zachriel_{July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PST}

Silver Asiatic: great beauty also because it exists for a reason and purpose. If the claim about being a "spectacular masterpiece" was merely aesthetic, then our question wouldn't be pertinent, but the term "engineering" implies something more. harry: If God’s intention was to call a human being into existence and then call this innocent child of God back to Himself, that is not a failure. Presumably, the claim about being a "engineering" entails some objective criteria. Your response, however, is strictly theological.Zachriel_{July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PST}

Zachriel asks "You do realize that up to half of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortion?" And if Zach were concerned with the actual science at hand instead of primarily concerned with spreading his Darwinian theology no matter what, he may have realized that the pattern in which spontaneous abortions happen is very powerful evidence against Darwinian evolution being true. In the following video, Dr. Nelson points out that in order Darwinian evolution to be viable as a theory then, 'to evolve -- any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring':
Darwin or Design? - Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church - Nov. 2012 - ontogenetic depth (excellent update) - video Text from one of the Saddleback slides: 1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows. 2. Thus, to change -- that is, to evolve -- any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring. 3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo. http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/
In fact, developmental biologist Eric Davidson states that the consequences of mutating a subcircuit of the dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network), which is involved in orchestrating embryonic developement, is "always catastrophically bad"
A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html
And just as Paul Nelson and Eric Davidson have pointed out, we find that there is a much higher percentage of embryonic miscarriages in early development than in later development:
Embryo Miscarriage Studies using very sensitive early pregnancy tests have found that 25% of embryos are aborted by the sixth week LMP (since the woman's last menstrual period), even if a woman does not realize it.[9][10] Abortions after the sixth week LMP happen in 8% of pregnancies.[10] The risk of them is "virtually complete by the end of the embryonic period," with a rate of only two percent after 8.5 weeks LMP.[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo#Miscarriage
In fact, in the twisted world of Darwinian reasoning, Dr. John Avise used the fact that mutations are overwhelmingly detrimental, which is actually a very powerful scientific argument against the claims of Darwinian evolution being true, as a theological argument for Darwinism since, according to the twisted theology of Darwinian reasoning, God would never allow such things as detrimental mutations:
It Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species – Cornelius Hunter – June 2012 Excerpt: “Approximately 0.1% of humans who survive to birth carry a duplicon-related disability, meaning that several million people worldwide currently are afflicted by this particular subcategory of inborn metabolic errors. Many more afflicted individuals probably die in utero before their conditions are diagnosed. Clearly, humanity bears a substantial health burden from duplicon-mediated genomic malfunctions. This inescapable empirical truth is as understandable in the light of mechanistic genetic operations as it is unfathomable as the act of a loving higher intelligence. [112]” – Dr. John Avise – “Inside The Human Genome: A Case For Non-Intelligent Design” (Dr. Cornelius Hunter goes on to comment) "There you have it. Evil exists and a loving higher intelligence wouldn’t have done it that way." – http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/awesome-power-behind-evolution-it-is.html “Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens.” John C. Avise - Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design – Pg. 57
I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:
Mutation total (as of June 27, 2015) - 166,768 http://www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/
Regardless to what Dr. Avise, and other neo-Darwinists, may believe theologically, such an overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations is NOT a point of scientific evidence in favor of Darwinism! In fact, it is a very powerful scientific argument against Darwinian claims,,,
Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - May 2013 Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11]. 1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696. 2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19. 3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358. 4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144. 5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47. 6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. 7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117. 8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526. 9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685. 10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079. 11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006 Biological Information - Overlapping Codes 10-25-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OytcYD5791k&index=4&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
That this fact, (such an overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations is very powerful, and falsifying, evidence against Darwinian claims), would even have to be pointed out to Darwinists is a sad testimony to how warped Darwinian theology truly is in regards to the actual science at hand. As Dr Hunter points out, 'religion drives science and it matters'.
Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html
bornagain77_{July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PST}

But your claim was that “from conception, every human being is a spectacular masterpiece of divine engineering”, which doesn’t seem consistent with a 50% failure rate.
Genetic entropy from a once very good design.Virgil Cain_{July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PST}

Zachriel, like the rest of those of his cult, has to maintain the acceptability of mass-murder of unborn children... crushing them alive as they are ripped from the womb. "It's not a person, it's not a person, it's not a person." They must keep chanting this mantra to themselves in order to silence whatever remains of their conscience. Don't fool yourself into thinking these people can be reasoned with. Their hearts are hardened. They know the personal horror that will come with the realization that they've been casually advocating for the slaughter of millions of unborn babies... crushing and ripping them apart, separating out the organs... "It's not a person, it's not a person, it's not a person!" Zachriel, you will have no excuse.lifepsy_{July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PST}

Zachriel: "You do realize that up to half of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortion?" Never quite understood this as a moral-theological argument when I was in medical practice. It depends entirely on rhetoric, and not at all on logic. At its most basic "Because the Lord gives and takes away life as its Creator, it is equally OK for men to give and take away." By the same logic, since all people die, all people may be morally be killed for any reason. But one should perhaps be a little more scientifically precise. It has been believed for a good half-century, and evidence confirms, that early miscarriage is a screening process for grossly abnormal conceptions that are incompatible with life. For example: "... a recent study using comparative genomic hybridization to study the chromosomal complement of all blastomeres in preimplantation [ie aborted] human embryos, more than 90% were found to have at least one chromosomal abnormality in one or more cells". So your moral-theological argument actually goes as follows: "Because nature and/or God prevents abnormal conceptions from proceeding to term, it follows that humans are morally entitled to prevent normal conceptions proceeding to term." Can you tell me why that conclusion is valid?Jon Garvey_{July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PST}

Zachriel @12
your claim was that “from conception, every human being is a spectacular masterpiece of divine engineering”, which doesn’t seem consistent with a 50% failure rate.
If God's intention was to call a human being into existence and then call this innocent child of God back to Himself, that is not a failure. The glaring, inexcusable, immoral failure is mere mortals deliberately taking the lives of the innocent children of God. Do you think it is wrong that children are routinely murdered in the U.S. who are older and more viable than many patients routinely cared for in modern newborn intensive care units? Each time that happens is a 100% failure rate of morality and rationality.harry_{July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PST}

Perhaps another way to say the same excellent concept: “from conception, every human being is a spectacular masterpiece of divine beauty” Death of the embryo is part of the drama of human life - a drama which includes some amount of tragedy, which has great beauty also because it exists for a reason and purpose.Silver Asiatic_{July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PST}

harry: Human life belongs to God. Zachriel: Perhaps. I guess you'll be applying the Precautionary Principle to this situation, eh Zach? Andrewasauber_{July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PST}

harry: Human life belongs to God. Perhaps. But your claim was that "from conception, every human being is a spectacular masterpiece of divine engineering", which doesn't seem consistent with a 50% failure rate.Zachriel_{July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PST}

Zachriel @3
You do realize that up to half of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortion?
Human life belongs to God. We are His to call into being and His to call back to Himself whenever He pleases. As common sense and the most basic morality informs us, human life is not ours to destroy. As God put it, using all small words so even Supreme Court justices could understand it: "Thou shalt not kill."
The ancient inhabitants of your holy land you hated for their loathsome practices ... hated as ruthless murderers of children ... as murderous parents of defenceless beings. --Wisdom 12:3-6
harry_{July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PST}

"Can any of your neighbors tell, Kate?" My name isn't Kate. Andrewasauber_{July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PST}

asauber: Right on cue.
Can any of your neighbors tell, Kate? I'll ask them. http://www.rhymezone.com/r/gwic.cgi?Path=shakespeare/histories/kinghenryv/v_ii//&Word=understand+thus+much+english,+canst+thou+love+me#w
Zachriel_{July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PST}

"We admit our ignorance" Why do you use 'we'? Are you more than one person? Adrewasauber_{July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PST}

asauber: Right on cue. We admit our ignorance, but you failed to answer.Zachriel_{July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PST}

Zachriel: "How is it news?" Right on cue. It almost like you have programmed/canned responses Zach. Andrewasauber_{July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PST}

asauber: I had an exchange about this story with some people yesterday who wondered, “how is this news?” How is it news? Haven't you heard of embryonic stem cells? Organ and tissue donation?Zachriel_{July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PST}

I had an exchange about this story with some people yesterday who wondered, "how is this news?" I wondered when and how these people lost their ability to think. Anything that doesn't fit the narrative doesn't exist. Andrewasauber_{July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PST}

harry: From conception, every human being is a spectacular masterpiece of divine engineering You do realize that up to half of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortion?Zachriel_{July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PST}

Let me add that it is just as wrong to take the life of any and every innocent human being from the moment of his or her conception as it is to take the lives of those who are already -- visibly -- beautiful children. From conception, every human being is a spectacular masterpiece of divine engineering, one that is much farther beyond anything modern science knows how to build from scratch than the farthest reaches of the Universe are beyond planet Earth. From conception one is a beautiful child in God's eyes, one He has already loved passionately unto a horrific death on a cross.harry_{July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PST}

You will have to scroll down a little, but take a look at Lennart Nilsson's photograph of an unborn child at 16 weeks that appeared on the cover of LIFE magazine in 1965: http://time.com/3876085/drama-of-life-before-birth-landmark-work-five-decades-later A beautiful child. Take a long, hard look at it. Then take a look at the Guttmacher Institute's own statistics on abortion rates at various stages of pregnancy here: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html You will find that 11 percent of abortions take place at 16 weeks or later. Now, consider that the NRLC estimates that there have been 54,559,615 abortions since the Supreme Court abruptly withdrew the protection of law from the child in the womb in 1973. Applying the 11 percent rate to that number, you will find that over 6,000,000 beautiful children like the one who appeared on the cover of Life magazine have been brutally murdered in the United States. Apparently money is being made off of their body parts. Does anyone really think America will escape the wrath of God for this? It is time for us to reconsider Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. An excerpt:
The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
What will be the price America will eventually pay for every drop of childrens' blood drawn "legally" since Roe?harry_{July 16, 2015
July
07
Jul
16
16
2015
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PST}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply