Search This Blog

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Now that Darwinists have PROVED that they are anti-science...

Louis Pasteur knew quite well after debunking current thinking that microorganisms do spontaneously arise, stated; "spontaneous generation is a dream," or in French it reads,
La génération spontanée est une chimère.
note the word he used was not that of a NICE dream...but a nightmare.


Suppose we illustrate how anti-science some of our commenters are by quoting them...The following is comments made by me or a sympathetic soul in italics, the Darwinist commenter in green and my observations in purple.

The first and big point is that you cannot possibly have life *poof* into existence by natural causes,

An assumption on your part. You can't prove it.

DUH!  I suppose you say the same about Gravity?

"The law of biogenesis states that life only comes from already established life. This very important and fundamental scientific law can be credited to the work of Louis Pasteur and others. The findings rooted in repeated scientific experimentation and observation can be summarized as follows, Omne vivum ex ovo, which is Latin for, "all life is from life." " (From Creation Wiki).   

Scientists doing testable, repeatable experiments established that life comes only from life.   This has been established firmly enough to be called a law.   Only desperation on the part of Darwinists caused some of them to turn their back on the scientific method, truth, and common sense with the blind faith that the impossible could happen because they want it so badly.

Darwinism is anti-science because the true believers ignore the Law of Biogenesis...

There is no Law of Biogenesis.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.   What a foolish and anti-scientific statement!  If this is all you hear from the mouth of a so-called scientist you know immediately you are dealing with a religious zealot who must ignore science to prop up his belief system.

...and the 2LOT...

Evolution doesn't violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Of course it does!  Or, rather, if it did exist it would be the one process observed that moves in the opposite direction of the rest of the Universe.   Unless an outside influence brings both work and purpose/design/intelligence to a process, it will always move from order to disorder, from heat to cold, to energy to entropy.

Take it away, All About Science:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics - The Laws of Heat Power
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of three Laws of Thermodynamics. The term "thermodynamics" comes from two root words: "thermo," meaning heat, and "dynamic," meaning power. Thus, the Laws of Thermodynamics are the Laws of "Heat Power." As far as we can tell, these Laws are absolute. All things in the observable universe are affected by and obey the Laws of Thermodynamics.

The First Law of Thermodynamics, commonly known as the Law of Conservation of Matter, states that matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. The quantity of matter/energy remains the same. It can change from solid to liquid to gas to plasma and back again, but the total amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant. 

Second Law of Thermodynamics - Increased Entropy
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase. 

Second Law of Thermodynamics - In the Beginning...
The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at "zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state). Like a wind-up clock, the universe is winding down, as if at one point it was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since. The question is who wound up the clock?

The theological implications are obvious. NASA Astronomer Robert Jastrow commented on these implications when he said, "Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence." (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 16.)

Jastrow went on to say, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (God and the Astronomers, p. 116.) It seems the Cosmic Egg that was the birth of our universe logically requires a Cosmic Chicken... 

So actual science points to a moment of creation and, necessarily, a Creator!

and try to prop up the abject failure of Miller-Urey and all subsequent attempts but they have all failed.

That depends on how you define success. If you define "success" as "created life," then yes, they've failed. But if you define "success" as "help us understand under what conditions life could or could not have originated by natural processes," why then all of them have succeeded.

Anyway, we all know that if Miller and Urey, or any of their successors, had succeeded in creating life, you would right this minute be bellowing about how "see, see, this proves that you need an intelligent creator to create life!" The fact that such experiments are deliberately designed to minimize the human influence would be far beyond your understanding, just as it is with the analogous issue of genetic algorithms.

Here is the other side of Darwinists - they are elitists who are sure they know better than you and gather in groups to assure themselves that they do.  Darwinist experiments have simply underlined the problem, that we see more evidence for design every day and more barriers to "spontaneous generation" that show us why real science was able to establish Biogenesis as a Law back in the 19th Century.

poster source

So Darwinists deny established scientific law in building their fairy tales that they have imposed as a government-sponsored religion upon the students in the USA...and yet...and yet even with their domination of the academic world and the scientific establishment and the government and the media...there is enough common sense in the average American to more often than not taste something amiss in that Darwin Kool-Aid and spit it out!

I believe the article I last posted on Miller-Urey and other such experiments demonstrates conclusively that there is absolutely NO HOPE that Darwinists can create life or come up with a scenario that life will spontaneously evolve.

Darwinists also often resort to plain old lying.   Example:

Hey Philip, maybe you can answer the question that Radar runs from at warp nine: how do you measure information content? How can you tell if a given mutation increases or decreases the amount of information present?

Now that is a good one!  In fact, Jon Woolf and others have run away from the information question.  I asked them to give me a natural source for information and they failed miserably.  Why?  Because information is generated by intelligence and there is no intelligence in random occurrences.   So they realized too late their dilemma and tried to change the nature of the question.  So when they challenged me to quantify information I reminded them that since information is NOT material in form (thus unable to be generated naturally) then it cannot be quantified but rather we can only quantify the material that contains the information.  We are able to identify places on the DNA string where information for specific features and actions exist and see when these places are mutated or missing, etc.  In viewing changes to the genome we can see that information is being lost but we do so by the watching the physical containers of information.   Information itself cannot be quantified because it comes from intelligence and therefore information within organisms demands a supernatural source....and Intelligent Designer.   I call him God.

That article on the fruit fly also made me curious if there were any experiments, phenomena, obervations, etc. that a Darwinist would accept as having falsified Darwinism.

If the fossil record was not sequential; 

Aha!  It is NOT.  That is another one of Darwin's Fractured Fairy Tales. (apologies to Rocky and Bullwinkle and their various cohorts).

if we found that some forms of terrestrial life were genetically or anatomically unrelated to all others;

False premise.  All organisms have a common designer and have the signature in the cell known as DNA, like an artist's signature on a painting.   We do have organisms that do not depend on the Sun for energy, at least two complete ecosystems that depend on different substances being emitted from within the Earth.  We see domains of organisms that appear to be uncrossable by evolution.  But this all supports design.

if we found an organism with traits that clearly did not benefit that organism in any way, but only benefited others. 

If I began listing all the organisms that exist in part to support the life of other organisms then it would become the longest blog post I have ever made.   The ecosystems of both hot and cold deep-sea seeps are great examples of organisms that are designed to keep the other organisms alive.   There are inumerable insects and birds that are absolutely essential to the life cycle of hundreds of different varieties of plants.  

You yourself exist to give life to vast numbers of microorganisms, many of which are an essential part of your healthy existence.   Not only are you composed of billions of cells doing millions of processes every second you are also a home for other organisms.  A human being is like a planet inhabited by vast numbers of microbes dependent upon that planet's existence.   Then at the point when we die, all things change and various organisms begin to live upon the dead flesh left behind, tearing everything down and recycling (if not artificially stopped by the actions of an embalmer or hastened by a crematory) all the physical parts of what was a human being back into the Earth to sustain the larger ecosystem of the planet.

The body that is composed of matter will die.   The self that is within life and input by an Intelligent Designer?  That is eternal.   It is instructive to us that God made sure that life and design were obviously NOT natural so that we could clearly see and understand that there is a supernatural existence beyond this one.   Make no mistake, both Creationists and Darwinists make metaphysical statements about the world and bring presuppositions to the evidence.   It is apparent to me and hopefully to you that the evidence fits the Creationist scenario and cannot be jammed into the itty-bitty Darwinist just-so story.

Any of those, and many others, would falsify evolutionary theory.

Like hundreds of generations of fruit flies or thousands of generations of e. coli that stubbornly refuse to evolve?   Like the Cambrian explosion that now has been shown to contain every major life form, thus supporting Flood theory rather than Darwinism?  Like so many paraconformities in the fossil rocks that no reasonable man could ignore?   Like the collapse of so many dating records and the continual new findings about more complexity and design in organisms?  Like the evidence that the genome in organisms is devolving rather than evolving?   Things like that? 

In fact, Darwinists won't let either scientific laws or new evidence stand in the way of their religion. The real question for Darwinists is whether anything short of standing before God Himself would convince you of the paucity of your unscientific claims?   

In jumping from an airplane, you will find yourself far above humanity and exalted within the skies and in this jump we call life there is a time when some of us gladly accept and pull the cord on our parachutes.   Some of us see no need.  The abundant life hanging from the unbreakable cords of God's love on the way down to death is one of both mountains and valleys passing along until we finally touch down.   Those who refuse the chute  may have one heck of a ride to the end but the landing?   Not so good.


Anonymous said...

Wow Radar, this is hilarious! Jon Woolf really got under your skin, didn't he?

radar said...

"Wow Radar, this is hilarious! Jon Woolf really got under your skin, didn't he?"

The other way around, if anything. But since you mentioned skin, I might as well falsify another tenet of Darwinism (one Darwinists are not particularly proud of)...since we are all colored people. I have melanin under my skin rather than Jon Woolf, which is good, as I doubt he suffices as a UV filter.

Jon Woolf said...

Radra, if you knew what you were talking about ...

Actually, it's more like "if you knew what I was talking about..." Because clearly you don't.

"I suppose you say the same about Gravity?"

No, because the Law of Gravitation has been observed to be true in every place and every time we've tried to measure it. Sound theoretical and mathematical arguments indicate that gravity should hold at all places and all times. No one has been able to produce similar evidence or theoretical/mathematical arguments about biogenesis.

"Of course it does! Or, rather, if it did exist it would be the one process observed that moves in the opposite direction of the rest of the Universe."

No, actually it doesn't. I explained this once before, but apparently it failed to penetrate. A single living organism doesn't violate the Second Law because it continually takes in fresh energy and materials, and excretes waste energy and materials. Evolution is nothing more than a long, long series of individual organisms being born, growing up, producing offspring, and finally dying. No single link in the entire chain represents a violation of 2nd Law; therefore, the chain as a whole doesn't violate 2nd Law either.

Jon Woolf said...

"I believe the article I last posted on Miller-Urey and other such experiments demonstrates conclusively that there is absolutely NO HOPE that Darwinists can create life or come up with a scenario that life will spontaneously evolve."

Some people believe that the moon is made of green cheese. Doesn't make it true.

"I asked them to give me a natural source for information and they failed miserably."


"In viewing changes to the genome we can see that information is being lost"

How? If you don't know what it is and you don't know how much of it there is, how do you know any of it has been lost?

Me: "If the fossil record was not sequential;"

Radar: "Aha! It is NOT."

Yes, it is. Or so say all the people who actually, y'know, study fossils for a living. Only creationists, most of whom have never seen a fossil and wouldn't know how to interpret one with "Fossil Anatomy for Dummies" in one hand and "The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Fossil Record" in the other, are foolish enough to claim that the fossil record isn't sequential.

Me: "if we found an organism with traits that clearly did not benefit that organism in any way, but only benefited others."

Radar: "If I began listing all the organisms that exist in part to support the life of other organisms..."

You need to work on your reading-comprehension skills. "In part" isn't good enough. You need an organism that exists only to benefit others, and accrues no counterbalancing benefit itself as a result.

And I see you still can't stay away from Pascal's Wager. It's no more valid now than it's ever been, you know.

radar said...

You mean you guys are willing to take Woolf's content-free retorts as answers?

Do yourselves a favor, do a study on the abiogenesis thing. Find out what the barriers to abiogenesis are. You will be amazed at all the reasons abiogenesis cannot happen and you will wonder why so-called scientists threw away a never-disproven Law of Biogenesis. It is simply religious bigotry. Darwinism is a religion that plows right past evidence to hang tight to speculations unproven and unprovable.