Darwin and the 21st Century Evidence

[Richard Aberdeen]

The modern evidence clearly demonstrates that God created living forms of life to adapt and change to ever-changing environments. God's creation is living, dynamic and fluid and in constant flux, not static. Darwin is right about that. What Darwin is wrong about is what is called natural selection, which insists that such changes in life are random.

There is overwhelming evidence today demonstrating that changes within living forms of life are not random but rather, adaptations are controlled by DNA. which allows some adaptations and rejects others that are detrimental to survival. This is NOT random as Darwin assumed but rather, a result of deliberate DNA design.

To be fair to Darwin, there was no knowledge of DNA or the overwhelming complexity of living cells when he was alive. Those today who cling to Darwinian evolution are clinging to an outdated antiquated view no longer matching the modern 21st Century evidence.

Humans design things like a car or a house to be static; permanently remaining the same. God is much better at creation than we are, which is what all of the known modern evidence clearly demonstrates, regardless of one's personal beliefs. Today science is aware that not just life, but the entire universal creation is fluid and adapts and changes over time. Life likewise is designed to adapt and change, otherwise life could not survive within a dynamic fluid universal reality.

God is much better at creation than we are. If one can't accept that, such lack of understanding reflects their own narrow-mindedness, rather than scientific reality.

 

[MedicBravo]

Creation is so complex that no amount of time would have the building blocks of the simplest form of life finally "click" from randomness.
We (human beings) are dumb, easily panicked animals and without God (moral law giver) we wouldn't have lasted long to begin with.
The evidence for God is simple and complex. It's everywhere.

 

[NBTT]

Haven't looked into this in a while but science is looking into the mechanisms that drive the adaptability of life. I see God's handiwork in these remarkable mechanisms but most scientists do not.

"Lifestyle and environmental factors not only influence health in one individual but can also affect the phenotype of the following generations. This is mediated via epigenetic inheritance i.e., gametic transmission of environmentally-driven epigenetic information to the offspring." Source.

 

[Richard Aberdeen]

Haven't looked into this in a while but science is looking into the mechanisms that drive the adaptability of life. I see God's handiwork in these remarkable mechanisms but most scientists do not.

"Lifestyle and environmental factors not only influence health in one individual but can also affect the phenotype of the following generations. This is mediated via epigenetic inheritance i.e., gametic transmission of environmentally-driven epigenetic information to the offspring." Source.

Modern science agrees with the Bible, that the "sins of the fathers" can be passed down to the third and fourth generations. What humans do is intrinsically important to the survival of humans. This is well-documented.

Likewise, environmental factors play a significant role, but they do not result in only random changes as Darwinism assumes. It is established today that DNA accepts some adaptations and rejects others. This is clearly design and not random. DNA is an "information" driven reality and there is zero evidence that information can exist apart from intelligence. Meaning, without the mind of God, there is no life.

 

[Richard Aberdeen]

This is true. In fact, a mathematician calculated that it would take at least 10 to the 40,000th power for even a single protein to randomly form. To put that number in perspective, it is very far larger than all of the pieces of atoms in the known universe. In fact, any number larger than 10 to the 50th power as far as odds go, is considered to be "mathematically impossible," as if a coin toss could ever come up only heads that many times. The entire silly notion of random generation is exactly what it sounds like, utterly foolish and without basis in evidence. Modern atheism represents the worst kind of juvenile delinquent junk-science.

 

[NBTT]

This is clearly design and not random.

I said "science is looking into the mechanisms that drive the adaptability of life". I never claimed these mechanisms were random.

a mathematician calculated...

See thread The odds of evolution. Mathematical facts.

 

[Richard Aberdeen]

I said "science is looking into the mechanisms that drive the adaptability of life". I never claimed these mechanisms were random.


See thread The odds of evolution. Mathematical facts.

I didn't say that you did. I was only pointing out how absurd modern atheism is. Any honest historian will confirm that "science", when practiced correctly, which it often is not, is the best explanation given the current evidence. Science has fundamentally changed its collective mind many times in the past and is in the process of doing so today regarding what is generally called Neo-Darwinism. Many actual practicing scientists, some who are agnostic or atheists, are looking for a completely new and different theory of life, because Darwinism doesn't match the modern evidence.

Modern 21st Century evidence directly contradicts the claims of Richard Dawkins and others who pretend there is no Creator. Literally hundreds of experiments have been conducted attempting to prove that DNA information randomly exists unto itself and somehow "self-selected" itself into existence; every single such experiment has failed. There remains zero evidence for random generation of either information or life or anything else. Atheism is obviously just a lie.