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 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??)