Search This Blog

Friday, May 20, 2011

The utterly illogical and preposterous underpinnings of Darwinism - Honey, let's blow up the Subaru! (aka *poof* not proof)

It strikes me as odd that so many people believe that the idea that "God did it" is unscientific?   Certainly the majority of the great scientists of the last millennium did, in fact, believe that "God did it" and their concern was to figure out how "it" worked and how "it" could be harnessed for usefulness to mankind.  Only in the last 100 years or so has there been so much time and effort put into an effort to "kill off God" in science and culture.  Really, it is a shame that so many resources have been wasted listening for ET to call in or trying to figure out how life could come from non-life when people are dying of cancer and other diseases and we need more efficient ways of obtaining energy and other more useful pursuits!

Far stranger than "Got did it" is "It did it!"   Basically that is what Stephen Hawking spends thousands of words trying to tell us.   I would love to corner Hawking and ask him to demonstrate one instance of any of the laws of thermodynamics ever being violated?  He would be unable to do it.  The Universe couldn't create itself.  We can observe the Universe and the laws it obeys and we can say plainly that the Universe didn't create itself nor can it destroy itself.  We can also see that it is a process that is running downhill from energy to entropy, hot to cold, organized to disorganized...kind of like the slice of pizza your teenager leaves sitting out on his desk before he heads out for school in the fall.   If you don't check out his room before he gets back the following May you will find that the pizza has experienced downhill change!!!

Pizza experiencing an energy to entropy transition...

Actually, a piece of pizza would be a great thing for various flies and mold at first.  It would eventually turn to dust.   This Universe is also heading for a heat death, should God allow it to just go to the very end.   Oh no, I said God again?   Here's why:

There is no material natural source of life or information and yet we have life abounding everywhere and stuffed full of information.   Once when science was honest and not controlled by the High Priests of Darwinism the scientific community tested and established the Law of Biogenesis.  No one has ever been able to contradict or find even one violation of that law, either.  

Think on this...scientists who were not sure if God was involved in making the Universe or that a single God did exist used to simply guess at what things were made of and how they worked.   They would just think something up that sounded right to them and go on to discuss what to have for dinner.  We called that axiomatic thinking.   But then God-believing scientists began to see that there were logical laws and it made sense that a Logical Creator would make a Universe in which humans could figure out the basics of how things worked and profit thereby.   So Grossteste and Bacon and other early Christian scientific pioneers would establish empirical methods of investigation based on the idea that processes and phenomena could be understood because they were formed by a Logical God. They did NOT invent methodological naturalism, that is a lie from hell via Darwinists.   They did invent methodological investigation.  Sir Francis Drake didn't rule in or rule out the supernatural, he just said that man ought to hypothesize and investigate and test and come up with the solution that best fits the problem.   If William of Ockham is to be believed, the most obvious solution requiring the fewest corollaries is pretty darned likely going to be the answer.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.   There.  Simple.  No corollaries.

Occam's Razor.   Look it up.  I will admit that although Ockham and I would disagree on many issues of both faith and science, he was asking important questions and making important statements in a time of change within both the church and the secular communities.  His works and ideas helped paved the way for the existence of "scientists" apart from the men whose work and position allowed them to pursue scientific questions as a kind of hobby.   Ockham and Grossteste and Roger Bacon are among the clerics who gave rise to the education of the common man, the invention of science as a discipline and the application of logic to physical phenomena. 
  
Ockham would, I think, be troubled by the sloppy and metaphysically wishful thinking of Darwinists.   I mean, once he finally realized that I was not in jest while describing Darwinism and that 800 years after his time there would be a widely-held superstition that the Universe made itself and all of the living creatures on Earth just evolved by chance from some electrified mud puddle.   It might take me a while to convince him that such things are taught in the most prestigious Universities and even endorsed by several liberal church denominations.  

Well, knowing what the church was like in his day, what a particular church organization is doing today might not shock him at all.  But the remarkable ignorance of the Ruling Paradigm of Darwin?  That would likely completely blow his mind!  Nothing blew up and made everything, a bolt of lightning zapped a mud puddle and out stepped mankind?  Wow.  He'd probably ask me to just escort him back to the 14th Century where some measure of common sense reigned in some parts of the world!

Now, if by some completely statistically impossible means the Universe just popped into being randomly, how in the world do you expect such a Universe to work in any ways that were not random?  That is such sloppy thinking!   You want to posit that by some miraculous chance that somehow without time or matter a remarkably ordered Universe that has all sorts of forces and processes that can be measured and trusted enough to depend upon to the point that we can put people into big tin cans and send them up to the Moon and bring them down again successfully time and time again just kind of fell on us from nowhere by no means or methods?   That gravity always works just because it likes it that way?   How dumb can you be, really?  Think about it.   

Sometimes the big lie is the most successful.  Has there ever been a bigger lie than the idea that the Universe somehow created itself?   That is a return to rudimentary Paganism, not science.   Might as well just set up a shrine to the nearest tree and bring it offerings and prayerfully ask Mother Nature to please, please don't just *poof* out of existence the way she *poofed* in?  

Big Bangers have all sorts of troubles with their theory but none more troubling than to define the fraction of a second before the Bang itself.  What was that famous SINGULARITY and how and where did it come from?   How did nothing explode thereby making everything?   Hawking is so over the hill and far away he thinks GRAVITY compelled the Universe to exist, putting it rather simply, but the problem is that gravity is a force that operates within a material and temporal Universe and if you don't have that Universe yet, you don't have gravity, either.  Oh, and where did this time thing come from?   

Big Bang theory has all sorts of problems fitting into Relativity and Relativity doesn't play nice with Quantum Mechanics and no one understands QM because, for one thing, it appears to violate LOT and yet doesn't.  How could a subatomic particle know that it is being observed?  How can something be two places at once and yet not?  Sir Isaac Newton established laws of physics that were almost exactly right, right enough to build giant buildings and make fantastic machines and help the advance of technology but now we know his laws were more like exceedingly accurate estimates than absolutes.   In all of this, no one can fit Big Bang in because background radiation sticks out the back and if you stuff that part back in you are missing all sorts of energy or matter and when you look closer you see no means by which stars can be made except from dying stars and pretty soon you realize that Big Bangers all have the same problem - they do not have a coherent explanation for the beginning of the Universe that doesn't have huge unexplained problems.  

Also, do you often blow things up in order to put them into order?   Doggone it, the Subaru needs a tuneup, pass me the dynamite, honey!   Uh, no.  Or do you just leave raw materials in a heap somewhere and wait for them to assemble themselves into a building?   Do people go to the junkyard and buy a few hundred pounds of scrap and lay them down on the driveway expecting a car to make itself?   Of course not, you say, that is totally ridiculous.   Welcome to the Darwinist worldview.   You cannot find anyone who has a coherent, logical plausible story for how the Universe made itself or how life came from non-life or from whence information comes.   You get fairy tales not facts, *poof* instead of proof...in other words, you have been lied to your entire life.   Does this make you happy?   


Hollywood can make movies about a mud monster.  Only Darwinists can turn it into SCIENCE!!!






If you have been believing this Big Bang Macroevolution nonsense, take another look.  Don't be a schnook!  Because I gotta tell you, only a schnook would believe in a Golem.


I am allowed to use Jewish slang, because Pamela Gellar called me a mensch once.  To quote the fabulous author of Atlas Shrugs

"Evil is made possible by the sanction you give it. Withdraw your sanction."





Kindly leave your discarded belief in Darwinist fairy tales by the door on your way out, thanks.   We'll (hee-hee) blow it up for you later!  (If I just keep blowing stuff up I have to produce a 428 Cobra eventually, right??)

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nice artical. Like the bit about common sense being better in the 1400's...sad but true. At least in terms of science.

Anonymous said...

I love the sudden drop in intelligence and understanding when Radar expresses his understanding in his own words. "Nice artical" indeed.

Jon Woolf said...

It strikes me as odd that so many people believe that the idea that "God did it" is unscientific?

Lotta things strike you as odd, Radar. Doesn't mean they're wrong.

Certainly the majority of the great scientists of the last millennium did, in fact, believe that "God did it"

Really? The Chinese scientists who invented gunpowder and guns, kept detailed records of weather and stars five hundred years before Galileo, invented gliders and seismographs, took shipbuilding to heights undreamed of in the West, never heard of Jesus, and were Taoists or Confucians if they were religious at all, believed that the Christian God created the universe?

Anonymous said...

"Only in the last 100 years or so has there been so much time and effort put into an effort to "kill off God" in science and culture."

"Far stranger than "Got did it" is "It did it!" "

"a widely-held superstition that the Universe made itself and all of the living creatures on Earth just evolved by chance from some electrified mud puddle"

"Nothing blew up and made everything, a bolt of lightning zapped a mud puddle and out stepped mankind"

"by some completely statistically impossible means the Universe just popped into being randomly"

"gravity always works just because it likes it that way"

"Has there ever been a bigger lie than the idea that the Universe somehow created itself?"

"How did nothing explode thereby making everything?"

One lie and strawman argument after another. Seriously. Every single one a gross distortion.

Radar, is your position so weak that you have to out and out lie about opposing arguments? Why are you so afraid of an honest debate?

Is it a lack of knowledge? Or is it fear? Or some misguided sense of pride?

Anonymous said...

This one, of course, is a masterpiece of projection:

"You get fairy tales not facts, *poof* instead of proof...in other words, you have been lied to your entire life. Does this make you happy?"

Anonymous whatsit said...

Speaking of *poof*, what's the opinion among the Christians around here of today's Rapture?

Anonymous said...

"no one can fit Big Bang in because background radiation sticks out the back and if you stuff that part back in you are missing all sorts of energy or matter and when you look closer you see no means by which stars can be made except from dying stars"

Could you explain on this please? I do think it does sounds very interesting, but it's hard to make sense when you rattle it off like you do, oh and please don't post another endless article, its much better if you can explain it to us in laymans terms please.

Seriously the diagrams I'm sure their correct, but hard to decode, just please tell us in common sense where the background radiation sticks out the back.

Anonymous said...

"Speaking of *poof*, what's the opinion among the Christians around here of today's Rapture?"

Very disappointed. Except then I found out nobody else went, so thats cool, they just got the date wrong.

Anonymous said...

"Except then I found out nobody else went"

I didnt mean to be presumptuous. Did anyone else go?

Anonymous said...

Silly of me. Of course if you went how could you tell me now? Spose yuo could send a sign. Hm. So please do that if you can.

Anonymous said...

I would love to corner Hawking and ask him to demonstrate one instance of any of the laws of thermodynamics ever being violated? He would be unable to do it.

Why would you want to do that? Nobody other than YECs are claiming that the TOE violates the 2nd LOT, and the failure of this argument has been pointed out to them (incl. you) many times.

Here's a question for you: did your birth violate the 2nd LOT?

Anonymous said...

"If William of Ockham is to be believed, the most obvious solution requiring the fewest corollaries is pretty darned likely going to be the answer.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. There. Simple. No corollaries."

No corollaries? You're kidding, right? There's the rather massive corollary that there is an entity that violates all known laws of physics and for which no evidence exists.

If you really think that Occam's Razor says something as simple as "the simpler solution is always right", then "God did it" would be easily bested by "It just is".

But that's not what Occam's Razor says, is it?

radar said...

God being outside of the material world is not subject to the laws of a temporal, material creation that He made. Something made needs a maker. I am greater than a clay pot I have crafted. You are greater than a porch you built. But God is not just greater, He is beyond the material world.

The Bible and the testimony of believers, the agreement of the genealogy of the Bible with genealogies around the world, the signature of a designer within each cell and the supernatural nature of life and information are all very strong evidence for a Creator who is outside of the Universe and not limited to it's laws.

creeper said...

"The Bible and the testimony of believers,"

If that were true, then every religious text would be "strong evidence" for its own religion. And yet they can't all be true.

"the agreement of the genealogy of the Bible with genealogies around the world,"

That's only evidence for some parts of the Bible reflecting historic events. To assume that it means that all parts of the Bible are therefore historically true would be to commit the logical fallacy of composition.

"the signature of a designer within each cell"

... and that signature is where exactly? You're confusing functionality with intentional design, the famous argument from complexity. Brighter minds than you are trying to tackle this issue to prove the existence of God, but so far their efforts have been in vain.

"and the supernatural nature of life and information"

Neither life nor information is supernatural.

"are all very strong evidence for a Creator who is outside of the Universe and not limited to it's laws."

Got anything else? None of this does the trick.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Something made needs a maker."

And how do we know something is made? There are alternative explanations for functionality and complexity, so how can we make such a distinction?

-- creeper

radar said...

Sorry, creeper, life and information are not material in form and substance whether you say so or not. No test or measurement or experiment has ever been able to produce either of them but I have already proven how I can transmit information without exchanging any material at all.

No, there is no argument for functionality and complexity from natural causes. Organisms are a classic case of design and you cannot use designed processes to argue for random causes. Furthermore only a vivid imagination can free the Universe from a starting point and an ending point. Either there is a supernatural God or you believe in magic. The magic *poof* in which life appears, information is generated, all matter and energy and time are formed in JUST THE RIGHT WAY...Darwinism begins to sound like a bedtime story for a six year old.

creeper said...

"Sorry, creeper, life and information are not material in form and substance whether you say so or not."

You should read more carefully, Radar. The fundamental error of your argument lies in the fact that you're proposing a false dichotomy of "material in form and substance" vs. "supernatural". They are not direct opposites, and you can't conclude that anything that is "not material in form and substance" is therefore "supernatural". And yet that is the sum total of your claims "information is supernatural" and "life is supernatural".

"No test or measurement or experiment has ever been able to produce either of them"

Regarding information, you're simply wrong, and I suspect that on some level you're aware of this, which is why you had to block an open exchange between Kevin and scohen on this subject.

Regarding life, progress is being made on the scientific research re. abiogenesis by natural means. But aside from that, the potential current absence of a test or experiment to produce life doesn't mean that life is supernatural. It's just your false dichotomy again.

"but I have already proven how I can transmit information without exchanging any material at all."

By, say, exchanging signals using light? Or sound? Or interpreting tree rings through visual inspection? So are all those (light, sound) supernatural as well now? After all, things don't get heavier or lighter when they emit light or sound, right? Isn't that what you're basing this logic on?

"No, there is no argument for functionality and complexity from natural causes."

Ooh, you missed a big one here. The theory of evolution. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Organisms are a classic case of design"

Speculation parading as fact. Sorry, but you don't get to skip the hard work. IDers know this and are at least working on it.

"and you cannot use designed processes to argue for random causes."

You'd have to establish that they're designed before making such claims.

"Furthermore only a vivid imagination can free the Universe from a starting point and an ending point."

Both the starting point and ending point are imagined as it is. It doesn't take any imagination to get rid of them.

You do raise an interesting point, though, in that it does appear to be difficult for the human mind to conceive of true infinity or eternity whether one calls it imagination or conceptual thinking. But just because we find it difficult to comprehend doesn't mean it can't exist.

"Either there is a supernatural God or you believe in magic."

The only "magic" you've presented in current scientific theories is based on misrepresentations.

But how can you claim that the actions ascribed to God in Genesis don't amount to magic? God speaks and things pop into existence... not magic? Seriously?

"The magic *poof* in which life appears, information is generated, all matter and energy and time are formed in JUST THE RIGHT WAY..."

As described in Genesis? Because you're certainly not describing mainstream science today.

"Darwinism begins to sound like a bedtime story for a six year old."

The way you distort it, sure, but then it's easy to mock anything by misrepresenting it. (And yes, Lista, that's "misrepresenting" as in "lying".)

-- creeper