Search This Blog

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

Defeating Darwin (defeating evolution) with logic - four ways

Time to take a time out from posting information from science blogs and political blogs and simply talk with readers.   I am so glad you take your valuable time to read my blog even one time and frankly never really thought I would keep blogging all these years but I am a crusader for truth, justice and the American Way and since I have no super powers blogging is all I have left to me.
 
FOUR TOPICS THAT STOP NATURALISTIC ATHEISTIC MATERIALISTIC  DARWINISTS DEAD IN THEIR TRACKS

For the purposes of this article, we will call them NAMD's.    That way I do not have to type so many letters.

1)  We have a finite Universe according to observation,  It is an expanding Universe (thus we have a red shift in the light received from stars) and furthermore calculations of the mass of the Universe tell us that there is too much expansion to be reversed by gravity.  The Universe, should it continue on as is, will experience heat death when all energy has become entropy.  Some scientists like to propose it as a cold death and perhaps a big crunch when everything contracts back into itself and explodes.   Some like long walks on the beach and Pina Coladas, too.   But too little mass, no retraction, no explosion, no more Universe.

The Universe is finite, ergo, it must have had a beginning.  So ask a Christian where all time and matter came from and he will say, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."   Ask a NAMD who or what made the Universe and he may take fifteen minutes or fifteen seconds to say, "I don't know." 

A Creator God who is supernatural and pre-existent is a logical first cause for the Universe,   NAMD will say no, I do not believe in God, it had to be something else.  "God could not have created the Universe because I do not believe in God."   This is a metaphysical statement and not a scientific statement.  You have now identified the problem NAMD has with existence.  The only logical conclusion is denied by NAMD because it does not fit their religious belief system, their worldview, and not because of observation.   Christians have an eyewitness account of the Creation from God in the Bible.  We have evidence to support our belief in what Occam's Razor would tell you is the answer.  God Created.

2)  Life.   Life is hard to define.  We know when a person is alive and when he is dead and we have been able to revive patients who temporarily quit breathing or whose heart stops.  Sometimes we can keep the blood flowing and the lungs filling with air artificially but if life goes, it goes, and you cannot measure it.  You can only deduce when it is no longer within an organism.  Life can only survive within an organism.  Organisms are rather complex beings that I and many others would argue could not possibly have happened by accident.  In fact, all living things carry a design code, a blueprint, some would even say a signature of the Maker which is DNA. 

Where did life come from?  Ask a NAMD and he will not be able to give you an answer that is worth repeating.  I have heard some astonishing and ridiculous ideas but never has a commenter on this blog or a scientist anywhere in the world proposed a means by which life came from non-life.  "By some happy accident", or words to that effect, will be your answer.  If God is kind you will not get stuck in a conversation with someone who proposes something ludicrous like "on the backs of crystals!"

Christians have an answer.  God created all living things and the order in which He created them is laid out in Genesis 1.  In fact, Louis Pasteur proved to the satisfaction of the scientific community that life only comes from life, the Law of Abiogenesis, so that at one point science was willing to agree with the Bible.  Now an NAMD says, "I don't believe in God, so I do not believe He created living things."   In other words, NAMD's have abandoned the findings of observational science because they prefer not to believe in God.  This is, again, a metaphysical statement and not a scientific statement.  The scientist says that life only comes from life.  The Bible says God made life to reproduce "after it's kind".  Science and God agree.  NAMD's do not so they are in this case simply unscientific and being driven by a religious point of view.

3)  Information.   I have used several posts on this blog to demonstrate that information has no mass, is not material in form but is in fact the transfer of intelligence or a message from intelligence.  Commenters have miserably failed to do more than repeat Darwinist propaganda here.  Classic analogy.  I have a pen and paper.  I stand on a weigh scale.  You stand on a weigh scale.  I write a message on the pad and hold it up for you to read.  You read it.  Your mass does not change.  My mass and the mass of the pen and paper set does not change.   But information flowed from me to you.

DNA is an intricate information coding system that works with information in the cell to produce and sustain life and to provide the information for new life.  Where did the information in DNA come from?  Would you believe one commenter said "Natural selection and mutation."  Mutation is a mistake.  Mutation is when something is broken or malformed.  Natural selection is a description of a process that is driven by the cell. 
Does a tornado assemble a 747 and fuel it and fly it?

A Christian would tell you that DNA is God's signature in the cell.   A NAMD will say, "I do not believe in God so it had to have come from a long series of accidents."  Now which is more logical?  That a Creator God would design self-replicating organisms with a coding system that causes them to adjust to changing conditions in order to provide an ecosystem for our planet, or that accidents and mistakes and oops and poof and voila and abra cadabra provided the most efficient coding system known to exist?  Again, a NAMD resorts to his belief system to deny the obvious.  Only an intelligent Creator could devise such a remarkable coding system and the fact that it is found in all organisms within all the man-made "domains" and "phyla" points to a common Designer.

4)  The Cell.   While in the automotive industry I worked in every facet - union labor, management, quality control lab, technical/engineering team and auditing team.   Now man is a great copier of creation.   The Wright Brothers, who were Christians by the way, were bicycle makers who studied birds to try to figure out how to make a flying machine.  Modern nano-engineers study microbes to learn to make nano-machines.  In any event, early automobiles were made powered by wind-up springs, by steam, by two-cycle engines using petroleum products and then four-cycle engines became popular.  Some early automobiles had three or six wheels but most have four now.  People tend to learn from others.

Nevertheless, our plant would make one part that fit all C-body GM automobiles, be they Cadillacs or Chevys or Oldsmobiles.   We also made the same part for Fords but when we made Ford parts we had to change the molds on the presses because Ford had a different basic frame design for their cars than GM used.  You will find that most automobiles come with disc brakes, at least on the front.  But you cannot use a Ford disc brake system on a Chrysler product,  it won't fit.  You cannot put a set of Buick pads and caliper and rotors on a Lincoln.  Each manufacturer has his own standard frames upon which the automobile is built and also many auxiliary parts and systems will only work on that particular kind of automobile even if almost all automobiles have similar systems.  Most fluids like oil and brake fluid and antifreeze can be used for pretty much any make.  But few parts are interchangeable.   You would not find that bird wings work on a bat nor will seal flippers suffice for a penguin. 

Because the cell lays the frame for the organism, no matter how the DNA of the mother and father combine in the embryo of the creature it will be the same kind as the mother.  Furthermore, the mother will only be able to mate with one of her own kind.   Just as you don't find Ford making Cadillacs, you will not find a fish producing an amphibian or a dog produce a lemur.   DNA within both father and mother contribute genetic information to the new creatures during reproduction but the cell drives and controls reproduction, lays the framework for the child and within the cell and DNA are multiple redundancies in the code to control errors and multiple switches preset within the organism for the most common speciation choices.  Often a mutation simply causes a switch to turn from "on" to "off" or vice-versa. 

A NAMD will simply deny that cellular control of reproduction is true because most of them are not well-informed on the subject.  Most of them will not know of genetic redundancies (that in and of themselves falsify Darwinism) and deny the facilitated variation theory because it is a design feature built in to the organism and design means Designer with a capital D and that ryhmes with G and that stands for God and that means trouble, right here in Darwin City!!!

You will agree that it is logical that a Creator would make organisms that would be able to adjust and adopt to lots of differing environmental factors and keep on taking their part in the circle of life?  Naturally He would design them to conserve their kind while being able to vary within the kind according to circumstances.   This is logical and it is what we observe.  All kinds of animals are able to speciate according to conditions, sometimes (like Darwin's Finches) changing back and forth from one prevailing trait to another, but never becoming another kind of creature.  God created every kind of creature He thought to be good and necessary for the planet.   That is logical.

Do a blog search for genetic redundancies or facilitated variation theory on radaractive blog and read up on what I have posted.  You can leave me behind and do more research for yourself.  That would be fun, to actually seek the truth rather than just swallow the Darwinist gruel they pass out in school?  Ad nauseum, how does a NAMD explain contingencies and redundancies built into the cell and reproduction controlled by the cell?   "I don't know but it couldn't be God because I don't believe in God."

That God created matter and time/life/information/cellular reproduction all make sense logically.  It is a simple cause and effect.  Newton and most of the other great scientists of the past believed that if the Universe was the product of a Logical Mind, then one could study it and learn how it operates.  Scientists have used the scientific method to observe and analyze processes and systems and forces and particles and waves to comprehend their workings and add to existing knowledge.  Somewhere along the way somebody let naturalism be shoe-horned in to the study of science and the result has been billions and billions of dollars wasted searching for the Missing Link and Aliens from Outer Space and similar wastes of time and energy.   SETI ceaselessly scans the skies for one hint of design while the brainwashed and/or the high priests of NAMD pretend that design within the cell is not overwhelmingly obvious. 

I am not wise enough to win my way to God nor good enough to qualify for His friendship nor strong enough to fight my way to God.  God in His mercy allowed me to see Him in the merciful life of Jesus Christ, in the wisdom of His Bible and very obviously in the awesome and intricate design of all of His Creation.   The information in the cell cries out to the logical mind of man to recognize the signature of the Designer.  If you come to understand the science behind the cell and how DNA functions and you remain a Darwinist then I must come to stand in awe at your faith in blind chance and circumstance, it is a faith beyond what a Christian can comprehend. 

18 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

Repeating claims that have already been shown to be flawed is not a winning tactic, Radar.

This entire post is just an argumentum ad assertion alopecium. It wasn't convincing before; what makes you think it will be convincing now?

Anonymous said...

Another litany of long-refuted fallacies. Are all creationists incapable of acquiring knowledge over time?

Hawkeye® said...

Radar,

Amen.

radar said...

Well, none of you have refuted any of them, which is why I was reminding readers of the basics. You have no answer for where the Universe and time came from, where life comes from, where information comes from and who devised the reproductive processes in the cell. Just the way reproduction works makes Darwinism absolutely impossible. All I need to do is keep pointing people back to real science and more and more eyes will be opened.

I will give creeper and Woolf credit for allowing the blog to chug along without cursing and crass name-calling. I am pleased to say I have NEVER had to delete a post from either of these guys. In fact I can only remember one comment this year that was so filthy that I had to trashcan it and it was not from a regular commenter.

Jon Woolf said...

On the first two points, I have insufficient information for a meaningful answer, and probably always will. Doesn't bother me none, though. Unlike you, I enjoy knowing that there's always something new to learn, that we don't have all the answers yet.

On the source of information, I've given you two different answers and you refuse to acknowledge either of them, much less attempt an intelligent response. Any reasonable observer would conclude that either you don't understand my points, or you know I'm right and don't want to admit it.

Your picture of the reproductive process fails because it contradicts basic biology. Every new organism grows according to its own genetic code, which is a combination of genes from both parents (for organisms that use sexual reproduction) and some unique mutations. You believe this precludes macro-evolution because (you think) there's an impenetrable "kinds barrier," but that barrier doesn't actually exist, so your argument fails.

"All I need to do is keep pointing people back to real science and more and more eyes will be opened."

Yes -- to the complete scientific illiteracy of the creationist position. The evolutionary process, extrapolated over Deep Time, is fully capable of explaining the history of life on Earth.

radar said...

"Your picture of the reproductive process fails because it contradicts basic biology. Every new organism grows according to its own genetic code, which is a combination of genes from both parents (for organisms that use sexual reproduction) and some unique mutations. You believe this precludes macro-evolution because (you think) there's an impenetrable "kinds barrier," but that barrier doesn't actually exist, so your argument fails."

I actually explained in great detail how the mother cell takes control of reproduction and the framework of the organism is from the mother. Much as a C-body frame from the 1990's GM automobiles could become Cadillacs or Olsmobiles or Chevrolets, a mother Pointer dog may produce, depending on the mixture of genetic input from the father, a Pointer or a mutt but in either case the puppies will be dogs. All C-Body automobiles whether hardtops or convertibles or Chevrolets or Cadillacs were GM cars, period.

Further more the built-in switching system eliminates almost every mutation or has preset choices based on copying mistakes. Furthermore the genome has redundancies built in specifically to be prepared for information loss. Some bacteria may have lost up to one-third of their original genetic information over the six plus thousand years of life but still function.

radar said...

Also Jon, you have never given us a way that information is materialistic in nature or how random processes generate orderly and complex coding systems. Example, please? Specific and not in Darwim jargon?

Jon Woolf said...

I actually explained in great detail how the mother cell takes control of reproduction and the framework of the organism is from the mother.

And I explained, shortly and simply, why this does not get you to where you want to go. It's true that in mammals, the mother gives the fetus its initial set of cellular machinery. But after the fertilized ovum starts dividing, it builds new cellular machinery using its own unique genetic code. That's the key -- that, and geologic time. Because every individual has a unique genotype, every individual will be slightly different from every other. If a selective pressure in the environment favors certain gene combinations over others, then individuals with those favored gene combinations will have a higher rate of survival, and a higher rate of reproduction, and the favored genes will spread through the population.

All of this, by the by, is something that you already admit happens; you just call it "variation within a kind" while I call it "micro-evolution." Where we differ is simply this: you place a much tighter limit on the extent of these changes than I do. You say "micro-evolution but not macro-evolution," while I say "micro and macro-evolution, but not saltation."

Or to put it another way: it's true that a single, specific bitch will never birth anything but more dogs. But if someone or something applied a selective pressure to an entire population of dogs, over many thousands of generations, at the end of it you could well get an animal that neither you nor I would recognize as a dog.

Further more the built-in switching system eliminates almost every mutation or has preset choices based on copying mistakes.

There's a hole in your logic. Do you see it? If not, I'll highlight it for you:

Further more the built-in switching system eliminates almost every mutation or has preset choices based on copying mistakes.

"Almost all" is not "all". Even if 99% of mutations are caught by the many filtering and self-repair systems, that still leaves 1% that get through. That 1% is the raw material for evolution.

you have never given us a way that information is materialistic in nature or how random processes generate orderly and complex coding systems.

I don't have to. "Information" is an abstract concept, and selection isn't random.

Jon Woolf said...

I actually explained in great detail how the mother cell takes control of reproduction and the framework of the organism is from the mother.

And I explained, shortly and simply, why this does not get you to where you want to go. It's true that in mammals, the mother gives the fetus its initial set of cellular machinery. But after the fertilized ovum starts dividing, it builds new cellular machinery using its own unique genetic code. That's the key -- that, and geologic time. Because every individual has a unique genotype, every individual will be slightly different from every other. If a selective pressure in the environment favors certain gene combinations over others, then individuals with those favored gene combinations will have a higher rate of survival, and a higher rate of reproduction, and the favored genes will spread through the population.

All of this, by the by, is something that you already admit happens; you just call it "variation within a kind" while I call it "micro-evolution." Where we differ is simply this: you place a much tighter limit on the extent of these changes than I do. You say "micro-evolution but not macro-evolution," while I say "micro and macro-evolution, but not saltation."

Or to put it another way: it's true that a single, specific bitch will never birth anything but more dogs. But if someone or something applied a selective pressure to an entire population of dogs, over many thousands of generations, at the end of it you could well get an animal that neither you nor I would recognize as a dog.

Further more the built-in switching system eliminates almost every mutation or has preset choices based on copying mistakes.

There's a hole in your logic. Do you see it? If not, I'll highlight it for you:

Further more the built-in switching system eliminates almost every mutation or has preset choices based on copying mistakes.

"Almost all" is not "all". Even if 99% of mutations are caught by the many filtering and self-repair systems, that still leaves 1% that get through. That 1% is the raw material for evolution.

you have never given us a way that information is materialistic in nature or how random processes generate orderly and complex coding systems.

I don't have to. "Information" is an abstract concept, and selection isn't random.

radar said...

"Your picture of the reproductive process fails because it contradicts basic biology. Every new organism grows according to its own genetic code, which is a combination of genes from both parents (for organisms that use sexual reproduction) and some unique mutations. You believe this precludes macro-evolution because (you think) there's an impenetrable "kinds barrier," but that barrier doesn't actually exist, so your argument fails."

Nope. I posted quite accurately and in detail on this. Observation of organisms supports the theory of facilitated variation with genetic redundancy and not your overly simplistic explanation.

radar said...

"Further more the built-in switching system eliminates almost every mutation or has preset choices based on copying mistakes.

"Almost all" is not "all". Even if 99% of mutations are caught by the many filtering and self-repair systems, that still leaves 1% that get through. That 1% is the raw material for evolution. "

And 1% is a huge overstatement, since the great majority of mutations are harmful. So if a minute number of mutations make it into an organism it is less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce.

Only by using special conditions in laboratories have scientists been able to get bacteria to successfully mutate and reproduce the mutation but every example has been a case of transferred information or lost information. No examples of new information in the genome EVER. ZERO.

radar said...

"you have never given us a way that information is materialistic in nature or how random processes generate orderly and complex coding systems.

I don't have to. "Information" is an abstract concept, and selection isn't random."

Running away here. Information is not abstract. What a cop out! Not one of you have come close to giving us a naturalistic explanation for information.

Darwinism doesn't get to claim natural selection for itself as it is a description of how speciation occurs. Since we now know that speciation is a result of the selection of pre-existing genetic information, Darwinism is left completely out in the cold.

No explanation for existence, for life, for information and for reproduction. I can give you a logical explanation for all of them. As could thousands of ID and creation scientists.

Jon Woolf said...

I posted quite accurately and in detail on this.

And I explained, shortly and simply, why this does not get you to where you want to go.

Information is not abstract.

If it's not material, and it's not abstract, then what is it?

Since we now know that speciation is a result of the selection of pre-existing genetic information,

We know nothing of the sort. Speciation is a consequence of evolution: genetic innovation and variation followed by selection.

I really don't understand why you insist that new information can't be introduced into the genome, Radar. There are far better ways to defend a direct-creation position. This nonsense about how variation only causes a loss of information is a certain loser, because it was disproven by empirical observation long before creationists even thought of trying to claim it.

Anonymous said...

"So if a minute number of mutations make it into an organism it is less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce."

Yet another logic fail. That "minute number of mutations" will include beneficial, neutral and harmful mutations, making the organism respectively more likely to survive/reproduce, just as likely to survive/reproduce, or less likely to survive/reproduce.

Basic logic, Radar.

Anonymous said...

"Only by using special conditions in laboratories have scientists been able to get bacteria to successfully mutate and reproduce the mutation but every example has been a case of transferred information or lost information."

Where else other than in "special conditions in laboratories" do you think scientist should conduct their experiments, and why do you discount this method?

"No examples of new information in the genome EVER. ZERO."

Nylon-eating bacteria are one example.

Anonymous said...

"No explanation for existence, for life, for information and for reproduction. I can give you a logical explanation for all of them. As could thousands of ID and creation scientists."

No, you can only give a vague, untestable hypothesis for any of them. You're not ahead of scientists, nor are you even being scientific.

Creation scientists have no cause to pat themselves on the back and pretend their work is done. They've proposed the hypothesis. Now the work starts.

Funny thing is, the work isn't progressing. No testable, falsifiable hypotheses that get creationists to where they so desperately want to go are being found.

Which should tell you something.

If you had an open mind, that is.

Anonymous said...

"Darwinism doesn't get to claim natural selection for itself as it is a description of how speciation occurs."

Speciation being evolution at the species level, which is a step beyond micro-evolution.

Anonymous said...

Jon Woolf: "I don't have to. "Information" is an abstract concept, and selection isn't random."

Radar: "Running away here. Information is not abstract. What a cop out!"

No cop-out here, Radar. Jon Woolf is completely correct.

Can you answer his question? If information isn't material and it isn't abstract, then what is it?