Search This Blog

Tuesday, February 01, 2011

Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could...

Hat tip to Karl Priest!

I remember one commenter saying to me "Demonizing Atheists?  Nice!" 

Atheists don't need any help being demonized.  If you are an atheist, you are already demonized.  Go read "The Screwtape Letters" sometime.  Your demon is living doesn't mean you are necessarily doing all sorts of bad things to other people.  Atheists insult God by refusing to acknowledge His existence and refusing to be thankful for having been given life.  Atheists are hazardous to their own future and that of anyone that agrees with them.  They have rocks in their heads!  It isn't funny, it is truly a bad thing.  If you are an atheist I sure hope you find the cure eventually.  If I can help you see that Darwinism is completely ridiculous, that will be a nice big first step.  You see, atheism is quite curable.   As Sir Francis Bacon said, more or less depending upon which source you tap;  

"A little science estranges a man from God. A lot of science brings him back." 

"God has, in fact, written two books, not just one. Of course, we are all familiar with the first book he wrote, namely Scripture. But he has written a second book called creation."

Dedicated Darwinists are almost beyond help.   Their refuge behind the shield of "it is accepted science" is not working, as people are beginning to ask them to prove said science and they cannot do it.   They are only effective if no one looks behind the curtain or asks them exactly what is in that black box?

The Great Oz has spoken. Pay no attention to that man behind the has spoken.

As mentioned earlier, the "black box" which was referred to by Michael Behe famously a few years back is actually among other things a term used by writers to represent an unexplained mechanism that helps move the story along.   The famous mind-controlled miles of machinery erected by the Krell in "Forbidden Planet" is a good example, as was "Robbie the Robot's" ability to simply make things on command.   It is also the common name given to onboard flight recorders in aircraft.  From the Free Online Dictionary:

black box
a. A device or theoretical construct with known or specified performance characteristics but unknown or unspecified constituents and means of operation.
b. Something that is mysterious, especially as to function.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

black box
1. (Electronics) a self-contained unit in an electronic or computer system whose circuitry need not be known to understand its function
2. (Engineering / Aeronautics) an informal name for flight recorder
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

If you are truly interested and want more detail on black boxes both real and imagined?

black box

definition -

A black box is any device whose workings are not understood by or accessible to its user. According to Edward Tenner, writing in The Washington Post, the first black box was a gun sight carried on World War II Flying Fortresses, with hidden components that corrected for environmental variables, such as wind speed. The crew probably didn't know how the device worked, but they knew it might be crucial to their survival. Nowadays, there are two types of black box carried on aircraft, which may be combined into a single device: a flight data recorder (FDR), which logs information such as speed and altitude, and a cockpit voice recorder (CVR), which logs all voice communication in the cockpit. These black boxes also carry beacons to help find the aircraft in a rescue situation.

A sampling of other black boxes:

  • In telecommunications, a black box is a resistor connected to a phone line that makes it impossible for the telephone company's equipment to detect when a call has been answered.
  • In data mining, a black box is an algorithm or a technology that doesn't provide an explanation of how it works.
  • In software development, a black box is a testing method in which the tester has no knowledge of the inner workings of the program being tested. The tester might know what is input and what the expected outcome is, but not how the results are achieved. A black box component is a compiled program that is protected from alteration by ensuring that a programmer can only access it through an exposed interface.
  • In film-making, a black box is a dedicated hardware device: equipment that is specifically used for a particular function.
  • In the theatre and television, a black box is an unfurnished studio.
  • In the financial world, a black box is a computerized trading system that does not make its rules easily available.
Perhaps because the metaphor is broadly applicable, black box is sometimes used to refer to anything that works without its inner workings being understood or accessible for understanding.

By the way,  I decided to watch some "answers to creationists" videos as I compiled you tubes and was astounded at the lack of actual content.   I did enjoy one comment calling out Darwinists for some specific assertions they made that they have had to retract:

1. Haeckel's Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny
2. Robert Wiedersheim published 86 human organs labeled "vestigial"
3. Inheritance of acquired characteristics (Lamarkian Inheritance)
4. Blending of inherited characteristics
5. Gradualism: "The Omnipotent position of adaptationism embodied in the Modern Synthesis is overturned." Science Nov 1980 (RogerS4JC)

As it happens, they have had to admit that "Junk DNA" actually has functionality and that each of the primordial ooze scenarios they have proposed are biochemically impossible.  When will they simply give up and have some respect for science?  

Although Charles Darwin's particular motivations for wanting to find some way to explain away God are understood, it didn't matter in terms of science.   Either what he proposed was true or not true no matter his personal worldview.   Darwin did hit upon at least part of the truth when he suggested that natural selection was at work in organisms and was responsible for producing the organisms seen alive today.    As far as that goes, that is largely true.  Natural selection is actually part of the design functionality of organisms, the name given to how the environment helps select the genetic information contained within the gene pool of that kind of organism to best survive and continue to fill its niche in the ecosystem of the planet.  Creationists believe that God made each kind of creature with a rich feature set of genetic information that would allow for large variations in ecosystems while conserving the kind.  Creationists certainly believe in natural selection, but we can actually explain how and why it works whereas Darwinists have to begin with all sorts of nonsensical statistically impossible Rube Golberg machine-like scenarios that are truly an insult to your intelligence. 

The inner workings of an organism were truly a "black box" to Darwin and other scientists of the day, so again we can forgive them for believing that all life might have come from some simple single-celled thingy that spontaneously popped into existence out of some kind of primordial goo with the help of maybe a bolt of lightning?   They really had no idea of the nature of organisms.

Now by the time Michael Behe published his famous work,  Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, we were in a very different world.  Once Jules Verne had proposed that we might go to the Moon by being shot out of a cannon.   In the 19th Century, man-made flying machines were a dream and motor vehicles just did begin being formed as the century was about to turn.   Pasteur had proven the Law of Biogenesis.   That man would walk on the moon just about a century after Darwin began publishing books was of course completely beyond the imagination of most scientists.    But by the end of the 20th Century we understood DNA and irreducibly complex systems within cells that were far more complex than a map of all of the streets and sewers and gas lines of London.

Organisms are no longer a black box, for the most part, and Darwin's simplistic view of life is completely blown away by what we now know.   Irresponsible religiously motivated Darwinists have been seeking to keep the public from understanding what biochemists cannot help but see:  Life is designed!

It is simply foolishness to deny it.  This is why Darwinism is not spreading throughout the general populace despite the constant and continual propaganda from televisions and textbooks and magazines and even the insides of tea bottle caps!   Darwinism is not being taught as enthusiastically by ordinary teachers as it doesn't really seem to make much difference in operational science and it is not being used by most ordinary scientists in their daily routines because it is not observable and it makes no sense in the light of what we know about life.   Darwin's random happy chances of blobs of protoplasm bumping into each other is complete nonsense when compared to the ATP synthase or bacterial flagellum mechanisms.  

Deeper look?  You can't help it, go ahead!

Yes, mechanisms!   Organisms are biological machines with hardware and software and operating systems and meta-information and built-in redundancies and contingency plans and emergency plans with vast amounts of information that could have only come from an intelligent source.  They cannot have come from nothing.  In fact, the Universe cannot have come from nothing and yet in the end that is what Darwinists claim.

Today on facebook I was offered a chance to "like" the idea that the Universe was formed by a black hole!!!!!!!!!!!!   Uh, you have to have material existence to have a black hole to produce all material existence?  Talk about circular reasoning!  It is to laugh if it was not so pitiful.  Laugh?   We are supposed to get 28 inches of snow in the next 24 hours with 55 to 60 mph winds forming nice big drifts so very probably the house will be nicely insulated...with snow.  SO LET'S HAVE A HEARTY CHUCKLE AND THEN MOVE ON?  Darwinism is not the only thing that is hilariously ridiculous...

Billie Jean is not my Plover.   She's just a Gull that claims that I am the one...

The fact is that complexity is a very valid argument when the simplest conceivable life form needs to be remarkably complex and the biochemical facts of life are such that the so-called "building blocks of life" cannot exist on their own and could not have assembled themselves even if information was not needed...which it is.   Information has no mass, no material form, no substance - it is not natural and therefore it is supernatural.   Life has no mass, no material form, no substance - it is not natural and therefore it is also supernatural.   Darwinists can make huge ridiculous claims but ask them to produce a gram of information or life for you sometime - they cannot do it!   They can show you a living being and they can transmit information to you using a material to contain it, such as a writing pad or waves of sound and that is the closest they can get. 

In the real world proteins and enzymes and such are not just floating around hoping to hook up with a fellow biological building block.  The parts that make up life are not often found naturally outside of organisms themselves.   Darwinists would prefer that the common man did not know of the biochemical challenges to an accidental formation of life, let alone the reproduction and the conversion into the diversity life demonstrates today.   We actually have no idea how many trillions of varieties of organisms there are, because everywhere we go on Earth where we have not looked previously we find more - in ice, at the bottom of the ocean, in extremes of hot and cold, miles overhead floating in the air, deep in jungles, high atop mountains...Also even in places we frequent new varieties of organisms are discovered.   Funny thing is they all have that same DNA signature...hmmm...I guess God signs EVERYTHING he makes that would be called "alive?"

Where Darwinists shine is their very imaginative just-so stories in which they give you all these (profoundly impossible statistically) long strings of accidents that happen to happen in remarkably fortunate ways without going into much depth because they would then have to address the actual evidence at which point they kind of sidle away.   Evidence is not a Darwinist's friend when investigation of life at the cellular level and beyond is done.   Remember our old friend the bacterial flagellum?

So if Charles Darwin were alive today and he meant what he himself said, he would have already agreed with the Discovery Institute people who are saying that no matter the identity of the entity that did the deed, towards design is the direction that the evidence will lead.  Hmmmm, maybe Dr. Dre can put together a mix and we can dance to it?

The Universe didn't come from Nothing, it came from God.  So did life and information and matter and time and space.  Just because God did it doesn't hurt science one bit.  We can continue to study the Universe and how it works and learn how to use that information to make life better for people, cure diseases, find new energy resources, better building materials, more efficient motors, cure cancer, things like that.   Let's put away the silly SETI apparatus and give new assignments to all the "astrobiologists" and defund the NCSE and let Richard Dawkins go gently into obscurity.   Imagine if all of science was working on something useful instead of trying to prove that an ancient Greek myth and a grouchy old atheopath have any application to the 21st Century, shall we?

If you are addicted to Rube Goldberg stuff? Below is for you -


Anonymous said...

"Do remember that to disparage is not to argue and to continually repeat old saws in finitum ad nauseum will not make them true." American Vet aka Radar

Anonymous said...

Just had a look at Michael Behe's "Falsifying ID" and see at least two massive logic fails in it. Anybody else spot them?

Jon Woolf said...

I see you're stealing again, Radar. And this time you have no excuse at all: "Peanuts" is still under copyright to the estate of Charles Schulz.

radar said...

Jon Woolf, that cartoon is from a free cartoon blog. You've now called me a thief and a liar. I suppose that makes you a blackguard and a slanderer. Your character is hereby called into question. I dub thee "Scurvy Dog" henceforth, unless you repent of your ways.

radar said...

"Do remember that to disparage is not to argue and to continually repeat old saws in finitum ad nauseum will not make them true." American Vet aka Radar

And yet the Darwinist commenters continue to do just that. Will any of them demonstrate to us how the ATP molecular machine poofed into existence or how all these enzymes just happen to be hanging around against the laws of biochemistry to arrive just in time to allow for the cycle to operate?

Nope. When you don't have an answer to the science you just rip your clothes and throw dust in the air. Better commenters, please!

Jon Woolf said...

"that cartoon is from a free cartoon blog."

Sorry, Radar, but just because you read something on the internet doesn't make it true. As I said, "Peanuts" is still under copyright, and I rather doubt the Schulz estate would let a blog publish it as public domain. If you can prove otherwise, then do so: give us a link to the blog where you got it.

"You've now called me a thief and a liar."

[shrug] Well, if the shoe fits...

Anonymous said...


It seems to me that Radar is getting angrier and angrier and on the verge of losing it.
Maybe we should let him off the hook for a while. Who knows how many guns he has lying around in his house? And in any case, it's better for his personal health.

Anonymous said...


Q: As a Peanuts fan, I often come across content on the internet that uses the Peanuts copyrights and trademarks in an unfavorable fashion, and I don’t think it is authorized by Peanuts Worldwide LLC. What actions does Peanuts Worldwide LLC take to protect the work of Charles Schulz and the Peanuts property?

A: Read in over 2,200 newspapers in 75 countries and 25 languages, Peanuts is truly a global presence. As you can imagine, Peanuts Worldwide LLC must fight copyright infringements on an ongoing basis in almost every territory worldwide; a constant challenge, and an issue we take very seriously. Peanuts Worldwide LLC legal team, assisted by vigilant Peanuts fans around the globe, is constantly learning of and reviewing various unauthorized content and, within the bounds of the copyright law, takes action where appropriate.

Quick Radar, get that permission before they sue your pants off.

Anonymous said...

Above quote from

(3rd attempt; Blogger is having issues again it seems)

Jon Woolf said...

I should add, I suppose, that it's the principle of the thing that concerns me most. As a creator of intellectual content myself, I take the concept of copyright very seriously.

Radar, alas, shares the attitude of many people today: he seems to think that anything published once on the Web is fair game for re-use in any way he likes, regardless of copyright law. I expect better from someone who claims to be a virtuous, moral-living Christian.

As for this: "Who knows how many guns he has lying around in his house?"

can we avoid such rhetoric, please? It just perpetuates a vicious stereotype. I know a number of gun owners, and without exception they're fine folk who would never think of either 'leaving a gun lying around the house' or of using it against themselves or others, except in defense of home or family.

Anonymous said...

Jon, while I don't necessarily endorse the comment about Radar potentially having "guns laying around", and what that might mean for those around him. Isn't citing your own personal anecdotal evidence when it comes to gun owners just a little like Radar talking about his "experience" with geography?

From the abstract,

"Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home."

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

- Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

I meant geology not "geography".

Oh and Radar, have you been contacted by Peanuts Worldwide LLC legal team yet?

- Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

"I know a number of gun owners, and without exception they're fine folk who would never think of either 'leaving a gun lying around the house' or of using it against themselves or others, except in defense of home or family."

That's the problem: as long as people keep thinking there's generally no problem. But it's when they 'snap' and stop thinking things usually go awful.
Everyone has a breaking point. And if anger and frustration builds on anger and frustration...bad things often happen.

It's not rhetoric. It's concern.

highboy said...

So the same entourage of dissenters that get all hot and bothered by ad hominem attacks took this entire thread and without actually addressing its points:

1. accused radar of stealing
2. accused radar of lying
3. insinuated that he should have no firearms because he may harm someone.

and you people expect radar to take you seriously? Hilarious.

Anonymous said...

Spot the irony in above post by Highboy.

highboy said...

"Spot the irony in above post by Highboy."

I guess the irony went over your head. Its called hypocrisy anonymous. Learn the word, because you guys are shining examples of it.

Anonymous said...


Thanks for the compliment. ;-)

Anonymous said...

The fact that you take issue with the comments here while -as far as I know- you were the only one ever here to have his comments removed by Radar for violating the rules is indeed ironic, highboy.

I dare say that some would even call you a hypocrite for it.

Anonymous said...

I guess nobody spotted the logic fails in Behe's youtube clip. If anyone stops by here and would like to know what they are, please leave a comment.

radar said...

I do not recall that I removed a comment by Highboy. I know I removed a couple of profanity-laced comments by an "anonymous" commenter. But if I did remove a Highboy comment it would be for cause and I do not distinguish between friend or foe when it comes to language rules.

No one from the Schultz estate contacted me because I got the cartoon from a free cartoon site that allows copying with attribution. So as usual Darwinists make false accusations and unsupported claims.