Search This Blog

Thursday, June 03, 2010

Exposing the shell game of Darwinism. I appeal to you to THINK!

picture credit



One of my goals on this blog is to share the discoveries of scientists from other sites with my readership and to associate it with previously published information in order to inform Christians and non-Christians alike on matters that are of paramount importance.   Probably the subject most crucial to this blog is the subject of worldview.  In numerous ways I have asserted successfully that worldview usually precedes any consideration of evidences concerning origins.  Darwinist commenters have proven this time and time again by stating that only naturalistic causes can be considered when evidences are inspected.   This is naturally false and betrays a bias towards naturalism and a prejudice against supernatural causes with no good reasoning to support the viewpoint.  No one is qualified to declare that there is no God with any authority.



My premise is that all evidence must be viewed from the point of view that there may or may not be a God.  That a Creator God created all things is the prevailing opinion of human history.  It was the theme of the majority of the great scientists of the past.  It remains the most sensible explanation for existence.   Whether Theist or Deist or devoted Christian the scientists pre-Darwin tended to believe that God created and that the study of all things was primarily a means of discerning how the creation of God worked.   People believed that a logical explanation for processes could be expected to be found because a Logical Mind had created them.

Now here is where the rubber meets the road:  Observation.   In recent months I have concentrated on evidence that can be observed and tested and understood today, in the year 2010, without having to make any suppositions but just by applying our finite minds to things that we can pick at and poke right now.

Do you wonder why certain commenters want me to look at ice cores and tree rings?  Because there is no way to index either process back more than a few hundred years with great accuracy.  A creeper can assert that the number of tree rings on a tree proves that the tree is older than a Noahic Flood would allow for and yet he cannot say with certainty that tree ring formation is constant and can be reliably proven to have worked the same way three thousand years ago.   Nor can he assert with confidence how many layers of ice could have been formed in the first few years after a world-wide flood.   Nor can he explain why some areas of the ocean have little or no layers of sediment at all, thus making the world appear to be a few decades old.   Is it possible that Earth was formed fifty years ago?   Of course not!

The reason that commenters want to discuss these things is because they can bring out the "just suppose" stories that provide a long age for a tree or for the ice layers in the Arctic or Greenland.   But they cannot possibly prove that their methods are accurate because they cannot index back far enough.   The same problem exists with long-age half lifes or the accumulation of chemicals in the ocean.   Carbon-14 dating is so unreliable that no one takes it seriously for measuring long ages (supposing these long ages exist) and other dating methods exist that give us widely varying ages.   In fact there is no process that has been measured long enough reliably to extrapolate back to a certain starting point in the past, not one that can be proven to be true.  Polonium radiohalos and helium atoms in granite and pressurized petroleum and natural gas reservoirs and the presence of DNA and flesh preserved in animals presumed to have passed away millions of years ago just tells us that there will never be a method by which you can prove the age of the Earth.

Transitional forms?   Again I say there are none.  All animals presented as transitional forms have turned out to be fully formed animals.  Usually they are simply a species that is now extinct.   Never do we see a half-formed eye or a partially-developed wing system.  Never.

The rock records?   When reeds can be found thrusting through supposed multiple millions of years of rock that should put the lie to long ages right there.   The rock records are a record of catastrophism.   The Noahic Flood and its aftermath explain the rocks quite well, including the general order of fossils found and the nature of fosssils found and the order they are found in and the tracks that are left.

These things - tree rings, dating methods, rock records, fossils....they are all from unobservable past events that cannot be observed now.  Therefore if you have a good patter and quick moves you can convince people that the pea is under one shell when it is in fact under another...or palmed in your hand.   Darwinists can and do build long fairy tales about one tooth found so you can be sure they can really lay down a whopper given a few bones or a tree with a lot of rings.   Heck can't David Copperfield make an aircraft carrier disappear?

While I have posted long and hard about rock records and related items, recently I began to concentrate on what we can observe.  Life.  Microbiologists, cellular biologists, chemists, microengineers, geneticists and etc?   They observe life as it is and have discerned the following:

credit

DNA is a design mechanism.   It is far more than a blueprint but one could consider it as a very complex set of coding, software if you will.   We could think of it as a very precise and sophisticated application that runs on the hardware of the cell.   But the cell itself has an operating system that is also drawn from DNA, much like a computer it has hardware and software so while DNA provides the basis for both the operating system but also the applications that run on the cell.  But this is not terribly surprising because with four choices rather than the two choices given to computers running on binary code OFF and ON,  DNA is built on a ACTG system that allows for many more choices within the tiny physical footprint of the DNA itself.   ACTG are the building blocks of the DNA double helix: adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine.

It sounds simple, right?  But not at all.   I have shown via several posts that there is built-in switching that is designed to deal with common translation errors/mutations.   That there are redundancies that are built in to the genome that cannot possibly be explained by the fairy tale of chance mutations.   Furthermore, there are all sorts of choices within the genome of every kind of organism, every kind of life both plant and animal, choices that allow the kinds to vary as conditions change in the world around it.   Thus we have bears in the Arctic and bears in the equatorial regions.  We have organisms that live in extremes of hot and cold.  We have fish that live in both fresh and salt water and some kinds that are found in both.

Here is what observational science has found:  The mother lays the framework for the child, thus preserving kinds.   The way that organisms reproduce is a barrier to so-called macroevolution.   Beyond this, there is no source for new information to enter the genome.   You bet your bottom dollar that Darwinists have tried to figure out a way for it to happen but it never does.   Organisms can lose information and they can sometimes swap information but they do not gain new information so there is no way that some kind of imaginary simple cell ever made itself bigger and more complex.   Organisms are not only designed to be able to speciate by accessing the genetic information avaialable within the genome, but they can do it rapidly.   At first, Darwinists thought this was great news.  Rapid speciation, proof that Darwin was right, yahoo!   But once we discovered what speciation really is we also saw that it is a burden to Darwinism rather than a help.


Rapid speciation explains how mankind could separate into a few distinct groups we have called "races" in a short time.   Rapid speciation explains the robustness of the kinds, because if there can be five hundred or a thousand distinct varieties of the "dog" kind, that means there are a thousand different environments that the genome can select for to give that particular strain of dogs the advantage.


Readers, I have posted at great length about the great complexity of organisms.   We know that engineers study organisms to learn how to make better flying machines and swimming machines and micro-motors and so on.  Yes, man studies life to learn to make better devices because God's creation remains more sophisticated than the things we have learned to make.  The so-called primitive Trilobite had one of the most remarkable eyes in existence.  The Mantis Shrimp can see forms of light we cannot measure accurately ourselves.   Life might as well be signed "by God" because it is absolutely designed and it is designed so that no kind of animal can ever become another kind of animal.  Now that we know how reproduction happens we know this to be true, the knowledge has not filtered down to the media level yet so Darwinists must be like a child holding his breath.   You cannot stay that way, guys.   Take a breath and admit that life is designed and  move on from there.  Can you still build an atheist belief system in a world that was designed?   Have at it!


Darwin is dead.   He is aware that there is a Creator God now.   Darwinism is a canard.   It is in fact a totally ridiculous belief system in the light of what we now know about the cell and DNA.   It is absurd.  I will not pull any punches here, the worldview of Darwinists makes them adhere to an absolutely foolish and ludicrous and totally childish concept.  The very idea that a dog came about as a result of billions of happy accidents or that the mind of man just kind of happened somehow?    I am sorry, I do try to be nice on this blog but how long do you think people are going to be stupid?   Sure, there is a good number of people who do not give much thought to life and existence and they will say, yeah, whatever to the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Krishna or whatever, just move out of their way so they can get home and watch American Idol.  But reasonable people with a normal intellect who direct their attention to the cell and still think Darwinism is a valid hypothesis?  I am sorry, that is beyond ignorance, it is willful stupidity.  Smart people can be stupid.   Geniuses get drunk and wrap their cars around utility poles.   Great scientists marry a woman who will make their lives a misery.



Please, smart people, throw away your prejudice for just a minute and really think about it.  Any idiot can walk through the forest, come upon a house and understand that someone both designed and built it.  Take a walk through operational science and come to the cell with an open mind.   Be smart.  Admit it, the cell is designed, quit living the lie.   Maybe it shakes your worldview a bit, but you will feel better about it and yourself once you face the truth for once.

nature.com image

Michael Behe is a believe in Intelligent Design, but he is not a Young Earth Creationist.  One does not have to agree with me to be right and I don't have any certain proof that God created the Universe some 6,000 odd years ago.   I have evidence but not PROOF.   But I do have proof that life was designed.   Frankly, an objective look at origins demands that design is accepted, which is why Crick and those like him came up with directed panspermia.   He saw DNA for what it was and was intellectually honest enough to see that it was death to Darwinism.   Intellectual honesty and self-examination would be a fresh wind that would sweep a lot of garbage from the world of so-called science!   Is anybody out there?  Can anybody hear?  Or will the Darwinists dodge the argument yet again.   Life is designed. 

26 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

I am sorry, I do try to be nice on this blog ...

As do I...

but how long do you think people are going to be stupid?

Well you have, apparently, been doing it for years. "No transitional forms." "No reliable dating methods." "The rocks prove catastrophism." "Kinds barrier." "No source for new genetic information." Creeper, Canucklehead, me, others -- we've all tried to demonstrate how wrong you are. Time after time you ignore it all, and simply repeat your mantra that "darwinism is dead, life is designed."

Why won't you actually discuss any of the counterexamples you've been offered? Why won't you consider that perhaps your image of evolution has nothing to do with the theory that evolutionary biologists actually defend?

Human Ape said...

"But I do have proof that life was designed."

Translation:

"But I do have proof that life was magically created out of nothing."

And would that proof be your total ignorance of science?

Jon Woolf wrote "... we've all tried to demonstrate how wrong you are. Time after time you ignore it all, and simply repeat your mantra that 'darwinism is dead, life is designed.'"

RADAR, you're willfully ignorant. You just ignore scientific evidence, or spread lies about evidence without bothering to understand what you're lying about.

Why? Do you have a mental illness or something?

Anonymous said...

Wow, it's hard to keep count of all the arguments in this post that have been previously refuted at length on Radar's own blog.

And he has the gall to call other people willfully stupid?

Radar, we appeal to you to THINK!

scohen said...

This seems appropriate

"All [denialist movements] set themselves up as courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people"

Nope, *nothing* like what we see here.
But what would I know? I'm stupid.

radar said...

Evolutionary scientists defend speciation. They call speciation evolution. It was a good scheme back one hundred years ago. Speciation is how organisms change to adapt to environments. Natural selection is a process that we have observed and continue to observe in which the most efficient organism within an environment will be most likely to reproduce and pass on their specific traits to their offspring.

Problem is, we now know what happens at the cellular level, we now know a lot more about how DNA works in conjunction with the cell so that yet another observation has been defended. One kind does not become another kind.

We have never observed one kind of animal becoming another kind. Long studies of bacteria show that some information can transfer from one organism to another, but that is not new information. Loss of information sometimes results in a functionality not usually seen (ie citrate-eating bacteria) but these are examples of information loss. The citrate-eating bacteria would not last long in the real world as they are a classic example of testtube-world organisms. Other bacteria that can survive on more readily available and beneficial food would be far more robust that the citrates. I posted specifically on that situation.

I notice that every one of you avoids the processes that we can observe in order to discuss processes we cannot observe so that you can use hypothetical scenarios to paint a Darwinist picture. I am going to continue to point out that you are avoiding the fight. Like wrestlers making deadly threats on a promotional commercial, you threaten to expose my ignorance once we really step into the ring. But I am in the ring and you will not come in. You are all standing outside the ring making threat while fearing to step within the ropes.

Jon Woolf said...

Evolutionary scientists defend speciation. They call speciation evolution.

That's because it is.

It was a good scheme back one hundred years ago.

One hundred years ago, creationists were arguing fervently that speciation is impossible. They were wrong. Today, with the "species barrier" lying in ruins like The Crusher after the Heckling Hare got through with him, creationists have instead resorted to the "kinds barrier." This you set wherever it's most convenient for your argument. For mammals, that's usually at the family level. Evolutionary theory indicates that cladogenesis at those levels takes thousands of years at least, and probably more like tens or hundreds of thousands. We've been watching Nature in detail for less than three hundred years. That's simply not enough time to observe origin of a genus, much less a family or higher clade.

We have never observed one kind of animal becoming another kind.

What's a "kind of animal," Radar? How do you distinguish one "kind" from another? If I showed you a series of animal skulls, could you tell which ones were different "kinds?" I doubt it.

Loss of information sometimes results in a functionality not usually seen (ie citrate-eating bacteria) but these are examples of information loss.

The appearance of a new ability is information loss? That doesn't even pass the giggle test, Radar.

I notice that every one of you avoids the processes that we can observe in order to discuss processes we cannot observe so that you can use hypothetical scenarios to paint a Darwinist picture.

Nonsense. We've tried to discuss your posts on information and genetics. You ignore us, or divert the discussion with doubletalk, or just gallop full tilt to a different topic while trumpeting another illusory victory to your followers.

radar said...

"Loss of information sometimes results in a functionality not usually seen (ie citrate-eating bacteria) but these are examples of information loss. (radar)

The appearance of a new ability is information loss? That doesn't even pass the giggle test, Radar." says WOOLF.

This statement proves that Woolf is either incredibly ignorant or deliberately deceptive. If I want a baseball bat and there is not one around, I could rip one leg off of a stool and use it but the stool would not function well anymore and I would have a piss-poor bat. That is exactly the case with citrate-eating bacteria. You either just don't know what you are talking about or you hope other readers are too dumb or uncaring to research the subject.

http://creation.com/new-genetic-information

Basic Darwinist tactic. Making stupid claims without the actual evidence to back them up.

radar said...

So Ape, how do you explain the K & G findings that prove that the mother cell lays down the framework for the organism, thus fixing the organism as one kind and THEN the variables that are allowed within the genetic pool are applied to that template. Do you simply fail to understand this or are you avoiding it so you don't have to know about it? Closing your eyes and making loud sounds to shut out the bad creationist won't help.

As to what creationists are said to have claimed 100 years ago? What does that have to do with you and me? How do you even know that is true? Creation science didn't even exist in its present state back then because Christians were not paying much attention. We are paying attention now and we are researching and we are making Darwinism look like the fairy tale that it is. Speciation is a weapon in my arsenal, not yours. It does Darwin no good at all and in fact the opposite, since it is shown to be a design feature of the organism and Darwinists HATE the idea of design.

Jon Woolf said...

how do you explain the K & G findings that prove that the mother cell lays down the framework for the organism, thus fixing the organism as one kind

That's an easy one. You misunderstand what K&G actually discovered. I proved this in a previous comment using a single datum: if your version of events was correct, it would be impossible for mother and child to have different blood types. That can happen, therefore your version of events is wrong. QED.

If I want a baseball bat and there is not one around, I could rip one leg off of a stool and use it but the stool would not function well anymore and I would have a piss-poor bat. That is exactly the case with citrate-eating bacteria.

You have a piss-poor analogy too. The point of the citrate-eating bacteria example is not that the resulting organism is overall better-equipped to survive in the wild. The point is merely to demonstrate that it is possible for a mutation to add new information to the genome, in the form of a new and hitherto-unseen gene that gives the organism with that mutation an ability its ancestors never had. Remember, you say that adding information is impossible. That's an absolute statement, so one counterexample is all I need to prove it absolutely false. The citrate-eating E. coli is just such an item.

As to what creationists are said to have claimed 100 years ago? What does that have to do with you and me? How do you even know that is true?

I know it's true because I've read creationist works that old, and that's exactly what they said. It's relevant now because it helps establish a pattern of facts: over the century and a half since Darwin published his theory, creationists have repeatedly said that this or that aspect of it was impossible, and they've been repeatedly proved wrong. Each time, they've retreated to a new fortress, one that they thought the guns of science couldn't demolish. And each time, new discoveries have allowed science to storm their battlements yet again. I don't see any reason to think that your current sandcastle will be any more robust.

highboy said...

"Translation:

"But I do have proof that life was magically created out of nothing."

So what was life created out of then?

Anonymous said...

"So what was life created out of then?"

Molecules. But that's not the issue.

It's the magic that's up for discussion.

Anonymous said...

"That's an easy one. You misunderstand what K&G actually discovered. I proved this in a previous comment using a single datum: if your version of events was correct, it would be impossible for mother and child to have different blood types. That can happen, therefore your version of events is wrong. QED."

Looking forward to Radar's informed response to that one.



Kidding...

Radar won't go anywhere near this. He'll evade it like the plague.

Anonymous said...

"The point of the citrate-eating bacteria example is not that the resulting organism is overall better-equipped to survive in the wild. The point is merely to demonstrate that it is possible for a mutation to add new information to the genome, in the form of a new and hitherto-unseen gene that gives the organism with that mutation an ability its ancestors never had. Remember, you say that adding information is impossible. That's an absolute statement, so one counterexample is all I need to prove it absolutely false. The citrate-eating E. coli is just such an item."

Ditto. Come on, Radar, what're you afraid of? You've abandoned so many debates, and now you want to claim you've been in the ring to take on challengers? Get over yourself.

highboy said...

"Molecules. But that's not the issue.

It's the magic that's up for discussion."

What magic formed the molecules?

Anonymous said...

"What magic formed the molecules?"

Who says they were formed?

highboy said...

"Who says they were formed?"

So you're saying molecules have always existed?

Anonymous said...

I thought the wording was pretty clear.

highboy said...

"I thought the wording was pretty clear."

What isn't clear is the evidence you are basing the assertion on.

Anonymous said...

You do know the difference between a question and an assertion, right?

highboy said...

"You do know the difference between a question and an assertion, right?"

So are you asking if the molecules were formed?

Anonymous said...

??

Is the question really that difficult?

Seriously.

highboy said...

"Is the question really that difficult?

Seriously."

Are you incapable of actually giving me a response here? Where do you think the molecules came from? Or do you think they've always been there? Do you not know?

Anonymous said...

"Are you incapable of actually giving me a response here?"

You're the one evading the question.

creeper said...

Not sure where this is going, but Highboy, you do know that your body "creates" molecules almost non-stop, right?

And can I assume that you take that to be a natural process, as opposed to magical or divine?

-- creeper

highboy said...

"Not sure where this is going, but Highboy, you do know that your body "creates" molecules almost non-stop, right?"

What the hell does that have to do with anything? Anonymous said that life was created from molecules. I'm simply asking him where the molecules came from.

creeper said...

What does it have to do with anything?!

You asked "what magic formed the molecules". I pointed out that molecules are formed all the time, including in your body, with no apparent "magic" whatsoever.

Is it possible you don't understand your own question?

-- creeper