Search This Blog

Thursday, September 09, 2010

Darwinists and the "Incredible Flying House."

z

credit

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but Darwinists live in a flying house.  What I mean is that they have no foundation for their beliefs and therefore they try to steer you away from the foundation and get you to assume the house HAS a foundation so you can then listen to their story about how they built the walls and stairwell and roof and...wait a minute!  You can't have a house with no foundation, can you?  Darwinists believe that you can.   We can demonstrate this from the comments thread.

For one thing, macroevolution is not even a theory, since in order to qualify as a theory a hypothesis needs to be testable and to be tested.   If you want to say that macroevolution or Darwinism has been tested (millions of generations of bacteria, thousands of generations of fruit flies) then it has been a consistent failure.  Darwinism is simply a hypothesis with no evidence to support it and yet it is miraculously presented as scientific fact by the majority of teachers and scientists and media outlets in this, the 21st Century.   I have often asked commenters to present objective evidence that supports Darwinism and they always come back with subjective opinion.   Just as the emperor has no clothes, the Darwinist has no foundation for his house of cards that is Darwinism.   But he will try to hustle you past the no foundation so he can baffle you with Darwinispeak.  Don't go there. 



There is, indeed, a better answer than *Poof* says God

So if you want to believe in the 1LOT and that nothing is being created or destroyed in the natural Universe, logic tells you that the Universe was not able to create itself.   The First Law of Thermodynamics has never been disputed and there are no known violations of any of the Laws of Thermodynamics.  I also pointed out that the Law of Biogenesis states that life only comes from life and organisms only reproduce their own kind.  Microorganisms and large animals have all been obedient to this law.   No violations of this law have ever been observed.

This means, for natural materialists, that the Universe must do the impossible and create itself and that life must do the impossible and create itself.  Spontaneous generation, a concept that was falsified in the 19th Century to the satisfaction of all, is a must for Darwinism.  Unless you allow for a supernatural cause for the Universe and for life...but then if you have God creating the Universe and life, who needs Darwin?   The Universe makes sense, life makes sense and there is no need for the convoluted and ludicrous just-so stories of the Darwinist.

So what do Darwinists do with this conundrum?  In the comments below, I will italicize anytime they quote me to make the conversation clear and I will intersperse comments as well.

"Anonymous said... "But Darwinism is anti-science, for it denies two of the most basic and emphatically proven laws of science. The Law of Biogenesis precludes spontaneous generation of life"

Wrong. The Law of Biogenesis precludes the spontaneous generation of complex forms of life. Anti-science folk and those who haven't bothered acquainting themselves with this subject like to take this to mean that this law precludes the spontaneous generation and gradual evolution of extremely simple forms of life, which is what current abiogenesis research examines."

Current abiogenesis research!  Right next to the perpetual motion machine research institute?  Do you people not listen to yourselves?  No life comes from non-life.  It is a law.  Darwinism is not even a theory but you are willing to throw a LAW away and ceaselessly, fruitlessly try over and over again to make life from non-life.  This is a stuck-on-stupid...you, sir, are the Anti-science folk.


So what does the biology online dictionary say?

Spontaneous generation

Definition
The previously popular notion that living organisms arise or develop from nonliving matter.

Supplement
The theory of spontaneous generation held that complex, living organisms may be produced from nonliving matter. It was a popular belief that mice occur spontaneously from stored grain, or maggots spontaneously appear in meat.


But they went beyond this and proved that microscopic, simple life did not spontaneously generate, either.  So now Darwinist scientists are spending millions of dollars and millions of hours of research time trying to accomplish something science had previously proven to be impossible.

"and the First Law of Thermodynamics states that there is nothing being created or destroyed, in other words, no spontaneous creation of material things"

"Actually, in other words that would mean that everything has always existed. Certainly not something that clashes with what "Darwinists" say, not least because it is completely irrelevant to Darwin's theory of evolution."

No, you are forgetting the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  The Universe is running down.  Therefore it had a start.  The LOT tell us that the Universe could not create itself and in fact that no natural cause could make the Universe.  So you are going to therefore either dismiss yet another law of science OR you have to accept a supernatural cause to the Universe.  What is it going to be?

"You don't have much ground to stand on here, certainly none at all to show that "Darwinism is anti-science"..."


So abandoning two of the most indisputable laws of science is not anti-science?   What is, then?

"and yet ~ The great faith that is Darwinism...a tribute to *poof*"

"Sorry, but to believe that Darwinism rests on a *poof* is a strawman argument, a misrepresentation. There also seems to be a bit of projection involved, since Genesis is full of one *poof* after another (none of which matches today's scientific observations, btw), not including the God himself who started the ball rolling, who is amazingly complex and yet whose origin can not be accounted for - so there's another *poof*. "

The huge difference here is that God as a Supernatural Being could cause the Universe and life.   Darwinism has both the Universe and life just *poofing* inexplicable and unlawfully from nothing by no cause or reason and against natural law.   God made natural law.  Furthermore, almost without exception all cultures have an account of God and a creation event and a worldwide flood and a history that is less than ten thousand years of life.   God has documentation. God also satisfies Occam's Razor.  If God created everything then the world makes sense.   If by unknown means it *poofed* into existence by some random miracle, random should be the expected state of things.   How could it be we have a Universe with logical laws that can be understood and processes that make sense to a logical mind?  

*Poof* is an ability that an all-powerful God possesses.  He said that He spoke the worlds into existence.  Maybe you do not like that concept.   But God creating all things makes much more sense than nothing creating all things.  God comes with *poof* as a given.  Nothing does not come with anything at all.

~

Darwinists desperately need something, anything, to take the place of God.   So they abandon science and give themselves over to faith, as I wrote:

The great faith that is Darwinism...a tribute to *poof*



Anonymous also said this:

"You've already been presented with numerous testable predictions in which the theory of evolution can be confirmed scientifically, and how they're confirmed. If memory serves, you opted not to respond."

Now that is a WHOPPER!!!  I would love to have a Darwinist point out actual evolution in action.  Speciation (which is simply a design feature of the organism and controlled by the cell itself with the use of DNA) is not evolution.   For evolution to be shown to occur, new information must enter the genome and new features or abilities must result.   I would just love to see a Darwinist show us that.  They won't because they can't.  
~
"Chaos Engineer said... The Law of Biogenesis precludes spontaneous generation of life and the First Law of Thermodynamics states that there is nothing being created or destroyed, in other words, no spontaneous creation of material things and yet

That's kind of an unusual interpretation of Natural Law. The usual assumption is that these laws are just human descriptions of the universe based on fallible human observations, and we can rewrite them at any time if we get new information.

So it's not completely ridiculous for scientists to say that the Law of Biogenesis can be broken under prebiotic conditions, or that the Laws of Therodynamics don't hold at the quantum level or inside a singularity."


That sounds intelligent, Chaos, but first of all neither you nor any other source has ever been able to define what this mythical "singularity" might be nor has anyone shown that the LOT do not operate at the quantum level.  So you tell me why so many scientists go against the flow of science to pursue a fairy tale?   It must be based on metaphysical grounds.  Evidence points us strongly towards a Supernatural Creator of both the Universe and life.  So you are ignoring the best evidence and pursuing shadows.   That's not science, it is religion.

"But it sounds like you're saying that these laws are beyond questioning, that it's absolutely impossible for life to be formed from non-living materials."

Gee, I am just echoing what actual scientists discovered after generations of tests of all kinds and standing by a law that was established 150 years ago and still holds true today.  I was simply being scientific rather than religious.

"That's theologically interesting: If God creates the Law of Biogenesis, and then immediately turns around and *poofs* some dust into Adam, isn't he breaking His own law and calling Himself a liar?

And if we can't trust God to play fair with the laws of physics and biology, then aren't the laws of morality and salvation equally at risk? (That's kind of depressing, but it does explain why so many Creationists seem so crabby all the time.)

I never think of myself as crabby.   My family likes me just fine...

I think it would be better to just say, "Well, we know there was a time when there was no life, and we know that there's life today, so the so-called Law of Biogenesis can't be true in all cases. We just need to figure out situations in which the law can be broken. We could do experiments with self-catalyzing chemical reactions, or maybe other people can think of other experiments we can run."

I really hate to bring DUH into the discussion, but God is not natural, He is supernatural.   He invented logical natural  laws by which the Universe runs and upon which we depend.  But He is not bound by natural laws, being outside the natural (thus, supernatural) and not subject to said laws.  


So whenever a miracle took place, an event that broke natural laws, mankind knew that God was involved - when the Red Sea parted, when Jesus turned water into wine or raised Lazarus from the dead then it was the very breaking of natural law that caught their attention and made them see they were in the presence of God or at least viewing a demonstration of God's power.  

"Some other anonymous, or maybe the same one, said:  "Seems to me our current lack of understanding of the universe saddles us with an impossible question to which we then have to find a way out of that. It's generally based on the notion that.

1. The universe exists.
2. There must have been a time when the universe did not exist.
3. How did the universe come to exist?
4. Nothing natural could have done it, therefore something supernatural must have done it.

The weak chain in the argument is #2, which is completely speculative, a mere assumption. We simply don't know enough to make this assertion or to draw conclusions from it."


Remember, you are the naturalistic materialists, so if you limit yourself to natural law then either the LOT are wrong or number 2 is obviously right.  If not, you are leaving the world of natural and moving into supernatural.  Since God said He created the Universe and mankind has generally believed him throughout most of history, you are in the minority opinion and what is worse, you have an unscientific one.   Applying the natural laws we have established we would conclude that both life and all material things were supernaturally produced.   Natural processes cannot be responsible based upon what we know and observe.


So why would Darwinists abandon reason and logic and common sense and run right past established scientific laws, not just theories but laws, in order to support an untested (or falsified, depending on your point of view) hypothesis that has holes in it big enough to drive a planet through?  It is for metaphysical reasons, it is driven by religion.   Even though God as Creator fits the evidence best, you guys run from that because you do not want to be responsible to a Higher Being.   YOU want to be the highest being!  Naturally...human nature wants to justify itself, man wants to be the big dog by nature.   But that is a flawed, sinful nature.   Once you understand that you are second in command to God then things begin to make sense.

"I went to the link provided by anom and viewed the video clip. Here is what Sean Carroll says is the "point". "The point is that you could imagine an understanding of the universe why it came into existence without ever leaving the laws of nature without ever invoking some divine, some supernatural being. The universe could just obey its own laws, could be a natural physical material universe obeying the laws of physics and that can be a complete explanation of everything."

The POINT is that you can not imagine the universe coming into existence by natural LAWS (if it is a law it is absolute) because "poof" is not a natural law! What Mr Carroll says is not logical. Why use the term the universe OBEYS its LAWS if these laws don't apply to its origin? DebB"

Exactly. If the Universe does not yet exist, neither do the laws associated with the Universe. Natural laws operate within the material Universe. No Universe = no laws. That is a pretty simple concept to understand.

Either the Universe made itself or some force/power/entity/God superior to the Universe created it. Logic tells us the Universe cannot create itself. Yet this is what Darwinists say when you peel away all the layers. The Universe created itself and life created itself and then living creatures evolved themselves up from "simple" (no life is simple) to complex, all of these concepts standing in direct opposition to the findings of observational science.


Or, you can abandon logic completely and begin to resort to countless multiverses, so many that every single possibility no matter how remote manages to happen. In one Universe mice play purple cellos in worlds that are inside out and dominoes talk and fart continually. There is a two-dimensional universe, well, probably billions upon billions of them in order to make way for every possiblity. One can say anything he wishes and, in one universe somewhere, it is true.

If you buy that kind of thinking you might as well check into the local Coockoo's Nest and line up to get your daily regimen of pills from Nurse Ratched.

 
Either the Universe made itself or some force/power/entity/God superior to the Universe created it.

Jon Woolf - "As usual, your thinking is muddled, so your claims are too. It wouldn't take a superior force. It would only require an external force.

Now, what could be external to the Universe? Answer that question, with something other than an unfounded presupposition, and then you'll have something worth listening to."


Are you serious?  Do you understand the definition of Universe?   I remember you gave up on information and yielded the point to me because "my definition was too narrow" when I used the dictionary definition.  I urge readers to go look at the information posts and see how the commenters tripped over themselves backing away from answering without looking like they didn't know...because they didn't know.  The free online dictionary says:

u·ni·verse  (yn-vûrs)n.
1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
2.
a. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things.
b. The human race.
3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.


Princeton University posts this definition: 
  • everything that exists anywhere; "they study the evolution of the universe"; "the biggest tree in existence"
  • population: (statistics) the entire aggregation of items from which samples can be drawn; "it is an estimate of the mean of the population"
  • everything stated or assumed in a given discussion
    wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
So in case you do not get the idea, nothing material exists beyond the Universe because it encompasses all time and space.  There is no "external" to the Universe.  Since the Universe is material, cannot create itself and is running downhill from energy to entropy then only a superior being who is not material in nature can be responsible.  That God is supernatural and superior to the material world makes him the only answer to the question.

We exist in four dimensions and we can move freely up and down and sideways.   That fourth dimension is inexorably moving us along and we have no control over that at all.  You need to quit thinking of God as a BIG POWERFUL MATERIAL BEING and realize He is a supernatural superior entity.   

When people speculate about multiverses they are leaving logic behind and science behind and they are simply using their imagination.   Now that is fine if you want to be Robert Heinlein and get rich writing a whole set of time-traveling science fiction novels.  But science is supposed to be observable data and logical conclusions based on the data.   Right?  So by what we observe and see we must conclude logically that a Supernatural First Cause brought the Universe into existence and also provided life and information.  I am simply being logical here.
 
On macroevolution:

It is to laugh, it really is.  (This is true, you are going to list a bunch of subjective stuff based entirely on presuppositions and neither observable or testable)

Anatomical patterns such as aortic arches are evidence for macroevolution.  Design.  Wait until mankind really begins to look at patterns not only in organisms but in everything.  Fractals and fibonacci sequences may be just as compelling witnesses to a Creator as is DNA.   A Designer makes more sense and explains why mankind studies nature to learn to do things.   Random chance is smarter than we are?  Really?


Transitional forms such as Diarthrognathus and Archaeopteryx are evidence for macroevolution.  These are complete animals and one of the biggest lies of evolution is poor old archy but speciation and variation is not evolution, sorry, wrong.

Patterns of descent in DNA are evidence for macroevolution.   Falsified!  Don't try to use DNA for your purposes as it's very existence punches Darwin in the nose and knocks him out. DNA includes large amounts of redundant and multi-purpose code that Darwinists have dismissed as junk. 

Ecological ghosts are evidence for macroevolution.  You see ghosts, too?   Have you considered evidences for the Blair Witch?

And, of course, all the known examples of micro-evolution are also evidence for macroevolution, since macro-evolution is no more than micro-evolution writ large.   This is a falsehood!   Please, readers, go see my posts on facilitated variation and genetic redundancy.  Read the information posts.   ALL SPECIATION is variation within kind using existing genetic information or loss of information.   Macroevolution requires large amounts of new information to enter the genome.  Speciation labeled as evolution is one of the worst lies perpetrated upon the general public in the last two centuries.   Ignorance believes it, but education can cure that. 

(hmmm... captcha: "elation" ... Hey! An actual English word appeared in the captcha box! But captchas are supposed to be just random letter-strings. An ordered result from a random process? Wow, it must be a sign from God!)    Yeah, He was glad you were done for the night...

You see what Woolf did?   Tried to lead you away from the nonexistent foundation to look at a picture on the wall of a house that cannot exist.   Darwinists will pull out cladograms and begin talking about imaginary transitional forms and count on the fact that you have probably not been out in the field much and do not know much about biology so they can draw you in and get you hooked. 

Do not let Darwinists fool you.  Here is where they have entirely failed to explain themselves coherently at the very basic level:

Existence itself.
Life
I have logical explanations for all of them.   I have a better explanation for the sedimentary rock layers, for massive amounts of chalk, for oil and gas under pressure, for dinosaurs found with flesh rather than just rock, for the entire Creation scenario.   Darwnism, as a naturalistic materialistic religion, cannot account for Universe, life or information.   How can they even begin to explain anything else?

Now here comes the big one...some anonymous poster who is afraid to even give us a name and I had this exchange:

1) "I have been at this blog for what, six years, and not one piece of hard evidence for macroevolution has been presented to me."

It was presented to you. You then ignored it and lied about it.

Demonstrable fact, that.

2) radar said...
"Anonymous said...

"I have been at this blog for what, six years, and not one piece of hard evidence for macroevolution has been presented to me."

It was presented to you. You then ignored it and lied about it.

Demonstrable fact, that."

Bring it on! I want to see that and so does everyone else... Do you care to identify yourself in some way? So we know who is going to demonstrate the fact?

3)  Anonymous said...
"Bring it on! I want to see that and so does everyone else...
Then start reading the comments on your own blog. All of them. And quit running away from the ones that disagree with you.

"Do you care to identify yourself in some way?"

Nah.

"So we know who is going to demonstrate the fact?"
Facts are facts. The messenger's irrelevant.

~


In other words, this guy has nothing and can prove nothing. The Life Science Prize has been an easy ten grand for any Darwinist who can bring objective evidence to court and make a scientific case for Darwnism and yet not one has taken the challenge even though Dr. JM has personally invited many of them.   Ever hear the expression "money where your mouth is"?

If I asked you to explain how an automobile works in detail, you cannot just write back "driving" and expect that to suffice as an answer.  So far that is the level of response we get to the question, "What suffices as objective evidence for macroevolution?"    Is it ever observed?  No.  Is the mechanism in place to drive it?  No.  Is it statistically possible?  No.  Is in in harmony with known natural laws?  No.  But it is a common religious choice.  Yes. 

7 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

Going for a world record on "number of fallacies in a single blogpost," are we, Radar?

For one thing, macroevolution is not even a theory, since in order to qualify as a theory a hypothesis needs to be testable and to be tested.

Nope. It can be tested and has been tested numerous times. Every time a palaeontologist uses evolutionary theory to predict where a specific fossil might be found, that's a test of evolutionary theory. Every time he or she then goes out and finds that fossil in that region, it's a successful test.

So if you want to believe in the 1LOT and that nothing is being created or destroyed in the natural Universe,

That's not what the First Law of Thermodynamics says. The First Law is more along the lines of "In a thermodynamically closed system, the total amount of energy is a constant, within the limits of observation."

We don't know if the observable Universe is a closed system. We think it is, but we could easily be wrong.

No life comes from non-life. It is a law.

No, it's not. It's an observation.

Furthermore, almost without exception all cultures have an account of God and a creation event and a worldwide flood and a history that is less than ten thousand years of life.

Not true, except for the last part -- which means nothing since written history goes back only five thousand years.

[skims over numerous other fallacies]

Do you understand the definition of Universe?

Do you?

I remember you gave up on information and yielded the point to me because "my definition was too narrow" when I used the dictionary definition.

Your memory is faulty. I simply stopped bothering to attempt reasoned discourse with a cinderblock wall. Your definition of "information" is still exactly what it was: logically flawed and therefore useless, because you tried to beg the question. Also simply wrong, because information can and does enter the genome without any intelligence being involved.

Jon Woolf said...

Random chance is smarter than we are? Really?

Smarter than me, no. Smarter than you ... I'd say the jury's still out on that question.

These are complete animals and one of the biggest lies of evolution is poor old archy but speciation and variation is not evolution, sorry, wrong.


Exhibit One for the prosecution: you simply can't understand why your use of language is fallacious. By definition, variation and selection, at whatever scale, is evolution. When properly used, as biologists use the word, "evolution" means that process and nothing else. It's evolution when mosquitoes develop insecticide resistance in one generation; it's evolution when finches change from seed-eaters to vampires over ten or twenty generations; and it's evolution when dinosaurs develop into birds or synapsids into mammals over several million generations.

Read the information posts. ALL SPECIATION is variation within kind using existing genetic information or loss of information.

Yes, lurkers, and don't forget the comments to those posts, in which the fallacies of Radar's claims are clearly demonstrated. As are a list of questions that he consistently refuses to answer, either because they're beyond his capacity or because he knows the answers would destroy his position.

Me: Ecological ghosts are evidence for macroevolution.

You: You see ghosts, too? Have you considered evidences for the Blair Witch?

[evilsnicker.wav] Radar, you really should stop underestimating your opponents. It might help you avoid boobytrapped comments like the above.

An "ecological ghost," also called an "ecological anachronism" or an "ecological relic," is a trait of some organism that makes no sense in the situation that exists here-and-now, but does make sense if you hypothesize it once had an ecological partner or symbiote. The fruit of the Osage Orange and the Kentucky Coffee trees are good examples: the fruits are clearly meant to be dispersed by a mega-mammal that eats the fruit whole and then excretes the seeds, as elephants do with many African trees, but no such mega-mammal exists today in North America. But if one looks backward in time to when mega-mammals did inhabit North America -- horses, camels, elephants, ground sloths -- then these traits make perfect sense. There's a very interesting book about them: The Ghosts of Evolution, by Connie Barlow.

Anonymous said...

"Going for a world record on "number of fallacies in a single blogpost," are we, Radar?"

The competition's pretty tough on this blog, Jon...

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Posts disappearing again... just posted two long ones and they showed up for a minute or so, then disappeared again.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Creeper, the problem with long comments disappearing appears to be related to comment length. I had the same problem with my above two comments. I originally wrote them as one. The Blogger "too long" error didn't trip, but I did get a Google error page, which said something about "URL too long." When I looked at the post again, my comment was there. Then I hit 'refresh' and it vanished. I reposted as two comments instead of one, and both parts seem to have stuck.

I've taken to composing my comments in Windows Notepad and cut-and-pasting them into the Blogger comment window.

Hawkeye® said...

Excellent post Radar. Classic, straightforward explanations and clear thinking. Your opponents are no match for you.

Anonymous said...

Excellent post Radar. Classic, straightforward explanations and clear thinking. Your opponents are no match for you.

Except that Radar gets such a beating from his opponents that he has to flee and start new copy/paste articles time and time again.

Kudos for this hilarious/delusional comment, Hawkeye!