Search This Blog

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Dear everybody - Darwinists believe you are stupid!!!

"There is only one explanation for these observations: (1) evolutionism cannot be falsified, (2) evolutionary theory assumes what it needs to prove, (3) evolutionists continue to maintain such passion about their theory, and (4) evolutionary theory relies on miracles: things originate, appear, emerge, develop, and ariseThe explanation: evolution is a religion masquerading as science.



On that topic, learn about Darwin’s religious views in this new article by Richard Weikart on American Thinker.  Coupled with Richard Dawkins’ oft-quoted statement that Darwinism allows one to become an intellectually-fulfilled atheist, it’s no wonder that Darwin’s disciples are so militant in their faith and energetic about keeping the real motivations hidden behind a facade of false-front scientific evidence to support their religion." - from the post  Evolution Fits Any Data

"Darwinism is a religion masquerading as science.  The high priests of Darwinism believe that the public is either too stupid or too lazy to investigate their claims, so they make deceptive and preposterous statements based entirely on beliefs rather than scientific evidence." - Radar

Be sure to check out the end of the post where many scientists, most of them Darwinists, make admissions that Darwinism doesn't really line up with evidence.

Remember this?




Truth is that, if you have ever had a teacher who told you that life could have come from non-life, they were giving you a fairy tale (Pasteur used the word "chimera" which translates best as a bad dream).  They had deliberately abandoned science and stepped into the world of religion.  That life could come from non-life is far too unlikely to have ever happened and then, when you consider how many different kinds of life there are and multiple variations thereof,  preposterous is not a strong enough word for it.   Even when Darwin was first positing his hypothesis he did not try to propose a natural start to life, but rather began with the concept of simple life evolving into more complex life.  It was the drive of atheists demanding a replacement for God that brought the world of secular science into the land of Tooth Fairies and Easter Bunnies.   Spontaneous Generation of life has already been disproven, so Darwinists renamed it Chemical Evolution and continue to pretend that there is hope of finding a way it could have happened.  World?  The check is in the mail...yeah, right! 


Intentional liars like Thomas Huxley, Ernst Haeckel and Charles Lyell  helped popularize a hypothesis by the classically deceptive Charles Darwin that should not be believed by anyone with half a brain. 


Huxley was willing and able to invent a life form that did not exist, Bathybius haeckelii, in order to promote Darwinism. The Duke of Argyll complained that Huxley and other Darwinists were promoting a "reign of terror" to bully and silence opponents of Darwinism. Gee, that hasn't changed yet! 

Darwin was motivated by an antipathy towards God and it was worldview and not science that prodded him to produce his hypothesis, one partially stolen from Creationists and unbelievers alike.

Haeckel made a faked embryo chart that sometimes still appears in textbooks despite being obviously faked and deceptive. He wanted to promote his favorite lie: Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny. 

Charles Lyell invented a rate of erosion for the Niagara Falls that he KNEW was wrong just to try to prop up his hypothesis of uniformitarianism and sell copies of his book.

They have earned their place in the Hall of Shame.  

Darwinists have no respect for your ability to think and reason for yourselves.  They think that critical thinking is dead and that the ordinary person isn't going to question their propaganda.   So they treat you, the student or the parent or whatever stage of life you are in, as if you are just plain dumb.  Their method is pretty simple.  They assert that no one but a total idiot would believe in God.  Then they ignore the actual evidence and tell just-so stories that only a total idiot would believe if the entire story was told.  They tell you that with infinite time (which we do not have) anything could happen.  Why should you have to suffer all this lying and deception just to keep them company?   Why should you believe the cobbled-together Darwinist dogma when Creation makes far more sense?
 
Darwinism is not science, it is nonsense!






"The present age abounds with a race of liars who are content with the consciousness of falsehood, and whose pride is to deceive others without any gain or glory to themselves."Samuel Johnson: Adventurer #50 (April 28, 1753)



You have 100 trillion cells in your body.   For every cell you have, you probably have ten companion organisms like bacteria, archaea and fungi.  Darwinists cannot explain how even one simple organism of the simplest kind could have ever naturally formed.   In fact every experiment ever done continually proves over and over again that it cannot happen.   Meanwhile they expect you to believe you evolved????   Really?  For a one-celled "simple" living organism is statistically impossible and you are 100 trillion times impossible and have ten times that many "friends" along for the ride? 



credit





You want to call this an argument from incredulity?  Sorry.  An argument from incredulity requires that a person does not have the imagination to comprehend a possibility.   Darwinists have continually asserted that life came from non-life, which breaks the Law of Biogenesis and this law has been proved over and over again billions upon billions of times.  The laws of statistics have told us that life coming from non-life is a statistical impossibility and the food industry of the 19th Century and forward along with countless lab experiments have continually proven that the Law of Biogenesis is true.   At some point Darwinists have to give up on their fairy tales and admit that life cannot come from non-life.   But they do not do this because the only other answer is that God created.   God created is the Occam's Razor answer, it is the scientific answer and it is the obvious answer.   But it doesn't fit into the Atheist's religious point of view.   Atheists cannot allow for the idea of God at any point.   Once God gets involved then everything they assert is cast aside and the entire preposterous Rube Goldberg Machinery of Darwinism is exposed as a house of canards.  It was Christians who were the first modern scientists and there are plenty of them working in science today.








The fossil layers do not support Darwinism. In fact every layer found is a catastrophic layer, the layers are not stacked up neatly in order at all.  The standard geological column is a fake.   In the real world, layers are "out of order" or flip-flopped or missing or even go back and forth.   There are numerous polystrate fossils that falsify uniformitarianism.   Megabreccias also tell us of a huge flood event, not long ages.   Beyond that, it makes no sense that there would be layers that suddenly and neatly yield to a new layer of another color and composition.   Was the world red for awhile then gray for awhile then yellow for awhile?  I don't have to link to past blogposts, I have covered every single aspect of the sedimentary layers.  Ian Juby was able to do experiments that proved a global flood would make the kinds of sedimentary layers we see.  The Mt. St. Helens events showed the world how catastrophic massive flows could carve a canyon like the Grand Canyon and lay down multiple so-called varves in minutes rather than years.   Since every fossil layer has indications of catastrophism, so only the public's slow learning curve keeps Darwinists from having to answer hard questions. 




But seriously, folks, since we know life cannot come from non-life you need God to create life. If He created life, why should we not believe He created it the way He wanted it? Is there any plausible explanation from Darwinists for the process of photosynthesis, of multiple symbiotic relationships, of the neck of the giraffe or the explosive cannon of the bombardier beetle or the inbred ability of the brush turkey to keep a big pile of dirt and twigs and leaves at an exact temperature and humidity? How do monarch butterflies know to go down to Mexico where they never have been? How do flights of migratory birds know how to use a formation that cuts down the drag on the trailing birds so that they can take turns in the lead and they can all thereby fly farther? How did humans manage to arrange to give homes to bacteria that help us digest our food and where did they live before there were people if people actually evolved?  A woodpecker has a specially insulated brain that keeps it from destroying said brain while their beaks hammer at trees.   Do we see any transitional woodpecker skulls, or beetles beginning to have a bomb factory, or birds learning to build tiny mounds and working their way up?  Do we see any half-giraffes?

Look into the cell.   The ATP synthase motor system must be in place for a cell to exist.   A cell cannot exist without it.  DNA is required to code for building a cell, but a cell is required to hold DNA.   Most people have not studied cells and do not understand that cells are far more complex than the most modern and largest factory made by man.   Most folks don't understand that cells and for that matter DNA require constant monitoring and repair and that the repair mechanisms are all built into the cell because they are coded for by the DNA that needs the cell that needs the ATP synthase motor that needs the...need I go on?   Darwinists cannot even find a way to explain the formation of a string of proteins by natural means and they expect you to believe that, by chance, untold billions of creatures consisting of untold trillions of cells just kind of happened?   Even one cell is too much!





credit

Understand this is a slow-motion recreation? In actuality a cell is moving a high speed constantly repairing and producing new parts to replace old, moving in myriad ways continually while you blithely go about your business not realizing that you are a walking miracle.  You are alive (Darwinists have no explanation for life) and you live in a Universe (that Darwinists cannot explain) that seems to be designed specifically for you to exist while massive amounts of information (Darwinists have no source for information, either) existing within your cells and specifically in your DNA give the orders that not only told your body how to build itself but also has the instructions that keep every cell in your body living moment-to-moment.  You don't need to think about making your heart beat.   You will naturally breath if you do not decide to stop it (and just try holding your breath until you pass out) but what is truly amazing is that all these trillions of cells that make up all the systems of your body and also the tiny electrical impulses constantly firing across your nervous system and within your brain are happening without you having to think about them. 

The only thing Darwinists have going for them is that they present an alternative to a Creator God.  Their hypothesis doesn't fit the available evidence at all.   I am asserting this now, but several years of blogposts on every conceivable part of this assertion stand in testimony to the truth of what I now say.   You, a thinking human being, should consider carefully whether you are going to keep taking the propaganda being served up to you or whether you will dare to think for yourself and investigate rather than simply accept?

I end this with one page from the Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia:

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

You will not read these facts in the newspapers or the popular press. But scientists are wringing their hands over the lack of evidence or mechanisms for how life forms on our planet could have originated. Evolutionary theory is unworkable. It is a myth. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

In the list below, full caps at the beginning of a hyperlink show it begins a new page.
CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about the Primitive Environment
An Ongoing Puzzle: The origin of living creatures is an astounding mystery
Evolution is Based on Spontaneous Generation: This is the big secret you are not supposed to know
The Correct Chemical Environment Would Not Exist: There are many reasons for this
Other Problems: For example, why do living systems operate intelligently?
Conclusion: There is only one solution to the puzzle
This material is excerpted from the book, PRIMITIVE ENVIRONMENT.
 
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.


You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Primitive Environment.

AN ONGOING PUZZLE

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
 
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
 
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199.
 
"Since Darwin's seminal work was called The Origin of Species one might reasonably suppose that his theory had explained this central aspect of evolution or at least made a shot at it, even if it had not resolved the larger issues we have discussed up to now. Curiously enough, this is not the case. As Professor Ernst Mayr of Harvard, the doyen [senior member] of species studies, once remarked, the `book, called The Origin of Species, is not really on that subject' while his colleague, Professor Simpson, admits: `Darwin failed to solve the problem indicated by the title of his work.'
 "You may be surprised to hear that the origin of species remains just as much a mystery today, despite the efforts of thousands of biologists. The topic has been the main focus of attention and is beset by endless controversies."—*Gordon R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 140.
 
"Mathematics and dynamics fail us when we contemplate the earth, fitted for life but lifeless, and try to imagine the commencement of life upon it. This certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or crystalline grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any possible kind of fortuitous concourse of atmosphere. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and miracle of the creation of living things."—Lord Kelvin, quoted in Battle for Creation, p. 232.
 
"We are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the Earth's surface and the origin of life . . Life apparently arose about as soon as the Earth became cool enough to support it."—*S.J. Gould, "An Early Start," in Natural History, February 1978.

EVOLUTION IS BASED ON SPONTANEOUS GENERATION

"Biogenesis is a term in biology that is derived from two Greek words meaning life and birth. According to the theory of biogenesis, living things descend only from living things. They cannot develop spontaneously from nonliving materials. Until comparatively recent times, scientists believed that certain tiny forms of life, such as bacteria, arose spontaneously from nonliving substances."—*"Biogenesis," in World Book Encyclopedia, p. B-242 (1972 edition).
 
"Pasteur's demonstration apparently laid the theory of spontaneous generation to rest permanently.
"All this left a germ of embarrassment for scientists. How had life originated after all, if not through divine creation or through spontaneous generation? . .
"They [scientists] are [today] back to spontaneous generation."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science (1984), pp. 638-639.
 
"His aphorism `omnis cellula e cellula' [every cell arises from a pre-existing cell] ranks with Pasteur's `omne vivum e vivo' [every living thing arises from a pre-existing living thing] as among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology."—*Encyclopedia Britannica, 1973 Edition, Volume 23, p. 35.
 
" `Every cell from a cell.' "—Rudolf Vircho, German pathologist. `Every living thing from a living thing.' `Spontaneous generation is a chimera [illusion].'—Louis Pasteur, French chemist and microbiologist." Quotations in Isaac Asimov's Book of Science and Nature Quotations (1988), p. 193.

THE CORRECT CHEMICAL ENVIRONMENT WOULD NOT EXIST

Chemical compounds would not have been rich enough.
 
"It is commonly assumed today that life arose in the oceans . . But even if this soup contained a goodly concentration of amino acids, the chances of their forming spontaneously into long chains would seem remote. Other things being equal, a diluted hot soup would seem a most unlikely place for the first polypeptides to appear. The chances of forming tripeptides would be about one-hundredth that of forming dipeptides, and the probability of forming a polypeptide of only ten amino acid units would be something like 1 / 1020. The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all [mathematical] probability."—H.F. Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution (1968), p. 158.
 
"If there ever were a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes . . In fact, no such material has been found anywhere on earth . . There is, in other words, pretty good negative evidence that there never was a primitive organic soup on this planet that could have lasted but a brief moment."—*J. Broks and *G. Shaw, Origins and Development of Living Systems (1973), p. 360. 

Enzyme inhibitors would surely have been present and would quickly have destroyed that which had been produced.
 
"It is clear that enzymes were not present in the primordial soup. Even if they were formed, they would not have lasted long since the primeval soup was, by definition, a conglomeration of nearly every conceivable chemical substance. There would have been innumerable enzyme inhibitors present to inhibit an enzyme as soon as it appeared. Thus, such molecules could not have formed; however, even with the assumption that they had formed, they could not have remained."—David and Kenneth Rodabaugh, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1990, p. 107. 

Rapid fluid loss would not have occurred.
 
"One well-known problem in the formation of polymerized proteins in water is that water loss is necessary for this process. Living organisms solve this problem with the presence of enzymes and the molecule ATP. It is clear the enzymes were not present in the primordial soup."—David and Kenneth Rodabaugh, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1990, p. 107.
 
"Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65. 

If oxygen were present, the required chemicals would quickly decompose.
"First of all, we saw that the present atmosphere, with its ozone screen and highly oxidizing conditions, is not a suitable guide for gas-phase simulation experiments."—*A. Oparin, Life: Its Nature, Origin and Development, p. 118.
 
"The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions [that is, with no free oxygen in the atmosphere]."—*Stanley Miller and *Leslie Orgel, The Origins of Life on the Earth (1974), p. 33.
 
"With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have gotten started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65. 

Just producing the needed proteins would be an impossible task.
 
"The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is fatal to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them."—*D. Hull, "Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation," in Nature, 186 (1960), pp. 693-694.
 
"In other words, the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.
 
"In the vast majority of processes in which we are interested, the point of equilibrium lies far over toward the side of dissolution. That is to say, spontaneous dissolution [atomic self-destruction process] is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis [accidental put-together process] . . The situation we must face is that of patient Penelope waiting for Odysseus, yet much worse: Each night she undid the weaving of the preceding day, but here a night could readily undo the work of the year or a century."—*G. Wald, "The Origin of Life," in The Physics and Chemistry of Life (1955), p. 17. 

Not even the scientists know how to produce the required fatty acids. Yet sand and seawater are said to have figured out the process.
 
"No satisfactory synthesis of fatty acids is at present available. The action of electric discharges on methane and water gives fairly good yields of acetic and propionic acids, but only small yields of the higher fatty acids. Furthermore, the small quantities of the higher fatty acids that are found are highly branched."—*S. Miller and *L. Orgel, The Origins of Life on the Earth (1974), p. 98. 

A reducing atmosphere (one without oxygen) would be required, yet it would produce peroxides, which are lethal to living creatures.
 
"The hypothesis of an early methane-ammonia atmosphere is found to be without solid foundation and indeed is contradicted."—*P. Abelson, "Some Aspects of Paleobiochemistry," in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 69 (1957), p. 275. 

A continuous supply of energy would, from the very first, be required.
 
"To keep a reaction going according to the law of mass action, there must be a continuous supply of energy and of selected matter (molecules) and a continuous process of elimination of the reaction products."—*P. Mora, "The Folly of Probability," in Origins of Prebiological Systems and their Molecular Matrices, Ed, S.W. Fox (1965), p. 43.

OTHER PROBLEMS

There are other amazing aspects to life. For example, where did the built-in intelligence come from?
 
"Any living thing possesses an enormous amount of `intelligence' . . Today, this `intelligence' is called `information,' but it is still the same thing . . This `intelligence' is the sina qua non of life. If absent, no living being is imaginable. Where does it come from? This is a problem which concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at present, science seems incapable of solving it."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 3.

CONCLUSION

There can be only one solution to the mystery of how living creatures originated.
 
"Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts." —*Francis Crick, Life Itself (1981), p. 153. [Crick received a Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA.]
 
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."—*Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88.
 
"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe, as an article of faith, that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."—*Harold C. Urey, quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4.
 
"All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 68.
 
"The probability of life origination from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." —*Edwin Conklin, Reader's Digest, January 1963, p. 92.
 
"From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life."—*American Scientist, January, 1955.
 
"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . The origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the Beagle."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 358.
 
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
 
To the next topic in this series: WHY LIFE COULD NOT SELF-ORIGINATE: 30 scientific reasons why it could not happen

58 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

[yawn]

So many fallacies, so little time...

If you want to really knock down evolutionary theory, Radar, you're going to have to actually address the facts and the science underlying evolutionary theory, instead of hurling all this mud and hoping that your readers are too stupid to check things out for themselves, using independent sources.

It's a source of endless amusement to me that you yap and yowl at climatologists for allegedly rigging the review process, and then you use the exact same tactic yourself to support creationism. Articles, papers, book reviews -- all of it is worthless as long as those who write it have already assumed the conclusion they want to be true. "The American Thinker" as an unbiased source? Creationist websites as honest purveyors of fact? Not in this world. They have an ulterior motive so nothing they say can be trusted. Ever.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"The fossil layers do not support Darwinism. In fact every layer found is a catastrophic layer, the layers are not stacked up neatly in order at all. The standard geological column is a fake."

Four lies in three sentences. How efficient of you.

1. "The fossil layers do not support Darwinism."

The sorting of fossils in fossil layers perfectly confirms an old Earth and the theory of evolution. No plausible creationist explanation for this phenomenon that actually lines up with observable data has ever been presented.

2."In fact every layer found is a catastrophic layer"

You'd have to have a very broad definition of "catastrophic" to make this a true statement. Ever heard of varves? They wouldn't exist if what you're saying is true. And yet they exist. Conclusion?

3. "the layers are not stacked up neatly in order at all"

The only times they are not in perfect order is when there are clear signs of folding or other geological processes that clearly explain any anomalies.

4. "The standard geological column is a fake"

How? I suspect you don't understand what the geological column actually represents.

The rest of this pack of lies is likewise easily disseminated, but as you can tell, it's easier (and more concise) to make a false claim than it is to dissect it. "A lie can run around the world etc."

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

Has anyone seen the link at the bottom of Radar's article? This one: www DOT pathlights DOT com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/07prim05 DOT htm

It's absolutely hilarious and should give you an insight into Radar's reading material:

"Why Life Could Not Self-Originate"

There are 30 supposed reasons listed, and while "Both male and female forms would need to make themselves and be near each other in space and time" is a contender for being the most bone-headed one, this one wins the prize: "There is no lab equipment out in nature"

YECs, you rarely fail to amuse.

AmericanVet said...

Dear Audience, Jon is giving you standard Darwinist propaganda which is not true. That is why I suggested you research for yourself. When he claims a source is biased that is the pot calling the kettle black. Every organization in science is composed of people and people have worldviews. Sadly, most secular institutions have imposed a groupthink worldview on their organizations. Heck, Albert Einstein probably would criticize the NCSE! He was at least an open-minded scientist who sought truth, not lockstep propaganda. Secular science owes the world an apology and a good dose of self-examination starting with Mr. Woolf himself.

HLH is laughing because he has no argument. Whether you call it spontaneous generation, chemical evolution or *poof* it is chemically impossible and statistically impossible and after so many decades of proof Darwinists should be ashamed to pretend there is any way at all for it to happen. But shame is something they are short on...

Anonymous whatsit said...

"HLH is laughing because he has no argument. Whether you call it spontaneous generation, chemical evolution or *poof* it is chemically impossible and statistically impossible and after so many decades of proof Darwinists should be ashamed to pretend there is any way at all for it to happen. But shame is something they are short on..."

Your arguments are based on positions that have nothing to do with present-day scientific positions. "Poof"? That's Genesis, not abiogenesis.

Kindly read up on current research in abiogenesis by natural means, then come back here and back up your ill-founded claims regarding chemical or statistical impossibility.

We know you can't do it, which is why you'll continue to evade, misrepresent, and blatantly lie.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Secular science owes the world an apology and a good dose of self-examination starting with Mr. Woolf himself."

Have you ever been able to falsify a single scientific claim made by Jon Woolf on this blog?

Have you ever been able to address the pertinent questions that Jon Woolf and others have posed to you on your blog?

Like the one by Hot Lips about how creationists interpret radiometric and tree ring and ice core layer data in a way that makes them line up with each other and their claims?

Can't do it, can you?

I don't think it's a problem that you can't - after all, you're just an interested amateur, but it's telling that not a single creationist has been able to come close to achieving this. Seems like it would be the very first step you'd take before proclaiming that a young Earth is supported by scientific evidence.

AmericanVet said...

I have posted the reasons in several posts why spontaneous generation aka chemical evolution is impossible.

I made sure to address Woolf's questions in a post just for him.

There are few laws that have been tested and proven more emphatically than the Law of Biogenesis. Anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish. Period.

AmericanVet said...

HLH, you have made one of the stupidest comments ever. I have sliced and diced the claims of Woolf and Darwinists on all these subjects. Do a search by topic and read all the posts that come up. Darwinists are liars desperate to keep the public from understanding how ludicrous Darwinism really is. I mean, you guys have NOTHING but complaints and you ignore the evidence I present. You can lead a horse to water...

Anonymous said...

"Anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish. Period."

Creationism in a nutshell.

Anonymous said...

"YECs, you rarely fail to amuse."

Wait, it gets even better! Now creationists are blaming evolution for Americans’ poor scientific literacy:

freethoughtblogs DOT com/alethianworldview/2011/09/27/creationists-blame-evolution-for-poor-us-science-showing/

Turn off your irony meters before reading...

AmericanVet said...

Actually, when a person actually just believes what Darwinists claim it hurts their overall education. The blind swallowing of Rube Goldberg science cannot help their thinking processes. After all, Darwinists deny some of the most basic laws of science, such as Thermodynamics and Biogenesis and every big bang model is mostly hot air. Even Einstein fudged his theory with a constant he pulled out of thin air to make the equation work. But Einstein admitted it.

Actually Miller admitted that he used a method that would produce amino acids that would be catalyzed in an oxygenated atmosphere and every rock layer has evidence that the Earth always had oxygen present. So life from non-life is impossible and I have posted specifically and in great length on this so don't give me any garbage about me not understanding, for I understand quite well. You folks pretend it is possible while those of you who know chemistry actually know better.

As for existence? Hawking is so looney that he gives gravity credit for creating the Universe while, without a Universe there is neither matter nor gravity. He is an educated bonehead. M-theory should stand for Magic because there is absolutely no shred of evidence for multiverses. None. Even the red shifts that give the Universe an expanding nature don't fit with the CBR which seems to be constant throughout the Universe. How can that be?

So Darwinists have no way to account for life or existence and they call what they do science? I call it myth and bad mythology at that.

Now we come to information. No commenter has ever accounted for information, which is present in all organisms in huge quantities and has no natural source. In order to come from mutations it had to exist first. So you cannot credit mutations for information because something has to be there to mutate. Besides that a mutation is bad, it is a spelling mistake not a correction.

You think you can get away with saying I do not comprehend? Yuk it up! If I published some of the technical papers I review you guys would mostly choke on them. I do not get too technical on the blog because it is for the public but I doubt that any of you know much about the chemistry involved in the barriers to life forming, you probably know very little about big bang mythology and you cannot know much about M-theory because there is no there there. You have all proven unable to account for information.

You will need a better set of questions to get me to pay attention. Otherwise I will keep informing the public and you guys sticking out your tongues on the sidelines do not bother me.

Jon Woolf said...

Now we come to information. No commenter has ever accounted for information, which is present in all organisms in huge quantities and has no natural source.

Under your own definition, there is no information in living organisms.

I made sure to address Woolf's questions in a post just for him.


So you say ... but in reality, your 'answers' all fell far short of actually answering the questions asked.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

Apparently Blogger chose to eat my previous comment, so here it is again in smaller chunks:

Radar,

having observed your behavior on your blog for a while now, I think I can summarize it as follows:

1. You very rarely read or understand the counterarguments presented to you. I've seen some cases where one could plainly read X immediately above your claim of not-X and you would still deny it... even when it had nothing to do with YEC or any of your other pet conspiracy theories.

I used to think that you genuinely don't understand the opposing arguments, but - even though I think that is still the case - there is more to it than that. You seem to have such contempt or anger or something like that at people who disagree with you that you can't possibly get yourself to try to engage rationally with their arguments.

2. You easily overstate the strength of your positions and declare victory even if it means ignoring clear falsifications of your position and applying blatant double standards.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

3. You apparently don't understand the meaning and/or significance of numerous logical fallacies, nor why they can not form part of a coherent argument.

4. You continue to be unable to respond to very simple questions that YECs should certainly be able to answer by now if they wish to claim that science is on their side.

Creationists still can't explain how YECs interpret radiometric and other data? That's interesting unto itself, but what's more interesting (if only from a psychological point of view) is your reaction to this. You don't acknowledge it or point to current research done on the subject. Instead you lash out at other people, some of whom are demonstrably far more informed than you are (yes, that would be Jon Woolf, as well as some others).

It's interesting to watch.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

If you ever come up with an answer to these questions, I'll be very surprised. Oh and as far as Woolf's questions go, yes, it's easy to find your response on your blog, but a response isn't necessarily an answer, and you thoroughly failed to address Woolf's questions - but, back to point 1 above, that appears to be something you can't comprehend.

2:07 PM

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"You think you can get away with saying I do not comprehend?"

Heck yeah. You vastly overestimate your own analytical abilities, and your lack of understanding of evolution and biology is extensively documented. What was that about you saying that according to evolution, bacteria would evolve into something other than bacteria over a few decades?

That was you wasn't it? Are you going to deny it?

AmericanVet said...

HLH

First, since bacteria can produce hundreds of generations in a short time then we should have seen them evolve into something else at least once. After all, hundreds of generations of humans would take us back far beyond recorded history to a time when some Darwinists claim were were hominids rather than humans. Yet bacteria do not evolve into anything else. Sometimes a mutation takes away a function and we get citrate-eating bacteria.

BTW we have found that resistance to modern drugs is built in to bacteria and did not evolve in modern times.

AmericanVet said...

Next - Darwinists hide behind so-called logical fallacies to avoid arguing points they cannot win. Doesn't fool me and probably doesn't fool readers.

Blyth, a creationist, coined the term natural selection and he was describing speciation, which is what we DO observe in organisms. Animal husbandry has been around long before Darwin because men have understood that you can breed features OUT. Thus we get turkeys that cannot breed by themselves but produce lots of white meet. We get muscular cattle that also cannot breed by themselves but produce more meat. We get poodles which can fit in your purse and wolfhounds that can barely fit into your backseat of your car. All of this by breeding information out.

AmericanVet said...

Flightless beetles on a windswept island lose their ability to fly. Information loss. But it keeps them alive on that island. If they were brought inland those with that feature would be eaten more easily and it would disappear.

Blinded cave creatures like fish survive better with no light because they depend on other senses and do not need working eyes that would just be another thing to injure. Information loss. But it works in caves.

Modern studies show us that speciation (variation within kind) happens fast in many cases and often there are switches built into the cell to accomplish changes fast. Finch beaks are one of these features. Ironically Galapagos finches have many differing beak styles that change depending on conditions. But they do not "evolve", they speciate and can actually go back and forth.

AmericanVet said...

I challenge Darwinists to come up with a way for life to come from non-life before they yap about evolution. If you need God to create life then we don't need Darwin to explain it. Darwinism has no answer for how life formed or how it obtained information or produced a wide variety of organisms with mind-blowing complexity.

AmericanVet said...

As far as radiometric dating, I just ran an Ian Juby two-parter on that. Don't give me the cannot comprehend BS. You either saw that or not. If you saw it, you have been answered. If not, you are making false accusations.

Anonymous said...

"First, since bacteria can produce hundreds of generations in a short time then we should have seen them evolve into something else at least once. After all, hundreds of generations of humans would take us back far beyond recorded history to a time when some Darwinists claim were were hominids rather than humans. Yet bacteria do not evolve into anything else. Sometimes a mutation takes away a function and we get citrate-eating bacteria."

And as if on cue, Radar predictably doubles down, again demonstrating his ignorance of not just evolution, but basic biology.

The only way he can keep this up (other than by being an amazingly consistent parody blog) is to genuinely not know what he doesn't know, to not understand where he is going wrong - even though it's been pointed out to him countless times.

Anonymous said...

"Next - Darwinists hide behind so-called logical fallacies to avoid arguing points they cannot win."

Name the argument and the fallacy.

Anonymous said...

"Blyth, a creationist, coined the term natural selection and he was describing speciation, which is what we DO observe in organisms."

Speciation is the generation of new species, which by definition is macroevolution.

And macroevolution falsifies creationism.

Anonymous said...

"Modern studies show us that speciation (variation within kind) happens fast in many cases"

Please define "kind" or "baramin".

The only attempts to define this term that I've seen are virtually synonymous with the biological species definition, with some weasel words added to avoid the obvious implications of such a definition for creationists.

Anonymous said...

"I challenge Darwinists to come up with a way for life to come from non-life before they yap about evolution."

No need to make one explanation a pre-condition for the other: evolution can be a valid explanation of the variety of species no matter how life got started, and abiogenesis by natural means can have a feasible explanation even if (though this is extremely unlikely) the theory of evolution were ever falsified.

AmericanVet said...

Oh, and I do not need to knock down evolutionary theory because it does not qualify as theory. It has none of the evidence necessary to qualify. It is a hypothesis and a very poor one. It does not meet the criteria for a theory and it is never observed to happen. Furthermore our level of knowledge about organisms should have convinced one and all that life is designed. Shame on all of you for running away from evidence!

The sedimentary layers are from a flood. Life has all the earmarks of design. Variation within kind is a process that also is designed. Darwinists have myths with no scientific support at all, and I mean none.

Anonymous said...

"If you need God to create life then we don't need Darwin to explain it."

First, Darwin's theory doesn't "explain life", it explains the variety of species irrespective of the origin of life.

Second, we don't "need God to create life" any more than we "need God to create thunder and lightning".

Anonymous said...

"Darwinism has no answer for how life formed or how it obtained information or produced a wide variety of organisms with mind-blowing complexity."

Wrong on all counts.

1. There are feasible explanations of how life formed naturally, most notably in the work of Dr. Jack Szostak.

2. How life obtained information? Easy, answered countless times: mutation plus natural selection. Beneficial mutations are retained, resulting in added information in subsequent generations.

3. How did life produce a wide variety of organisms with mind-blowing complexity? Why Radar, that is precisely what Darwin's Origin of Species is all about. You really should read it as well as a current textbook someday. You're really missing out, and embarrassing yourself in the process.

AmericanVet said...

Hot Lips, if your towering intellect is so great, explain to the readers how a DNA chain of any length can be produced naturally. You do not get to have a designer and oxygen must be present because we find traces of it in every rock layer. Go ahead, tell us...

Anonymous said...

"Oh, and I do not need to knock down evolutionary theory because it does not qualify as theory. It has none of the evidence necessary to qualify. It is a hypothesis and a very poor one. It does not meet the criteria for a theory and it is never observed to happen."

That kind of trash talk may impress fellow uninformed creationists, but it doesn't line up with reality. Ask scientists in the field, and they will gladly explain to you how the theory of evolution is tested and confirmed.

Anonymous said...

"Furthermore our level of knowledge about organisms should have convinced one and all that life is designed. Shame on all of you for running away from evidence!"

Arguments from incredulity (which are a form of logical fallacy) do not constitute evidence.

"The sedimentary layers are from a flood."

Then what is the process that sorted the fossils in those layers?

"Life has all the earmarks of design."

Back to the argument from incredulity.

"Variation within kind is a process that also is designed."

It may be complex, but concluding that it is designed is pure conjecture (and wishful thinking).

"Darwinists have myths with no scientific support at all, and I mean none."

And in that you are completely wrong. Expand your range of reading material. You think that bacteria not evolving into "something other than bacteria" is (1) something the theory of evolution would predict (it isn't) and (2) serves as a falsification of the theory of evolution, so your ability to assess anything scientifically is not just in extreme doubt, but clearly demonstrated to be completely lacking. I like how you stick to the argument though, without ever examining why it is wrong.

AmericanVet said...

You accuse me of not understanding?

""I challenge Darwinists to come up with a way for life to come from non-life before they yap about evolution."

No need to make one explanation a pre-condition for the other: evolution can be a valid explanation of the variety of species no matter how life got started, and abiogenesis by natural means can have a feasible explanation even if (though this is extremely unlikely) the theory of evolution were ever falsified."

Weasel! Evolution has never been verified, let along falsified. This is running away from the Law of Biogenesis!

Baramin is "created kind." Linnaeus was seeking to define the world of organisms by identifying the top level of baramin and then the speciation thereof. We now have DNA and are making adjustments to have a classification system that matches reality.

Anonymous said...

"if your towering intellect is so great"

Hate to burst your bubble, but it doesn't take a "towering intellect" to spot where the gaps in your knowledge lie.

"explain to the readers how a DNA chain of any length can be produced naturally. You do not get to have a designer and oxygen must be present because we find traces of it in every rock layer. Go ahead, tell us..."

Check out the work of Dr. Jack Szostak, and this link is also interesting:

www DOT evolutionofdna DOT com

Anonymous said...

"Weasel!"

Why? Because I exposed your nonsensical attempt at a rhetorical trick?

"Evolution has never been verified, let alone falsified."

Macroevolution having taken place over long ages is confirmed through the sorting of fossils in the fossil record.

True, evolution has never been falsified. You must be thinking of YEC.

AmericanVet said...

The fossil record does NOT verify evolution. Wishful thinking.

Speciation is variation within kind, it also is not evolution.

You brainwashed nattering nabobs of negativity do not even understand the basics of cellular activity and reproduction or the working of DNA and you claim that evolution is verified? A joke.

The sedimentary rocks actually prove a global flood. Did you people not know that there is actually one sedimentary layer that can be found all over the globe? No local flood could do that. You do realize that the so-called geological column is as phony as a Haeckel drawing, right?

You do realize that you have no answers for information, life or the formation of life? None? If you cannot explain the start of something you sure cannot explain the rest. I am ignoring the brainwashed herd. Comfort yourselves with your mythologies.

AmericanVet said...

BTW I have read the Darwin book and have a copy published over 100 years ago. I am something of a bibliophile. If you think Darwin explains the varieties of life on this planet you are a sadly deluded individual. Jack Szostak is also a sadly deluded individual. Furthermore there has never been anyone who has "verified" evolution. You say it, but you cannot come up with any proofs. Even Dawkins admits that.

Going back to work. Bye.

Anonymous said...

"This is running away from the Law of Biogenesis!"

The law of biogenesis applies to complex organisms, not abiogenesis on a molecular level. The impossibility of that has never been scientifically proven. You're confusing apples and oranges.

"Baramin is "created kind.""

I didn't ask for a translation, but a definition.

"Linnaeus was seeking to define the world of organisms by identifying the top level of baramin and then the speciation thereof."

Which was all fine until it turned out not to support YEC.

"We now have DNA and are making adjustments to have a classification system that matches reality."

I look forward to the futile and embarrassing work in this field. The cognitive dissonance in those labs (if they do indeed exist) must be unbearably painful.

Anonymous said...

"The fossil record does NOT verify evolution. Wishful thinking."

The sorting of fossils in the fossil record does show organisms gradually changing over time. Evolution can explain this.

Creationism can't.

Anonymous said...

"Jack Szostak is also a sadly deluded individual."

Wow, way to address the substance of his work.

I don't know which is funnier, that you're so out of your league or that you are deluded enough to think you're some kind of scientific whiz. Knowing what you don't know is an important life skill.

Anonymous said...

"You accuse me of not understanding?"

Is that even disputable at this point? Your bacteria argument alone makes that clear as day.

AmericanVet said...

Childish Darwinists calling names and arrogantly declaring how much smarter you are than me.

Meanwhile you dodge the main issues. Go ahead, check out that http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigators/szostak_bio.html

The guy is trying to DESIGN a simple cell. Design. He is trying to come up with a scenario where RNA comes first and, well, that path has already been trodden. I already posted an article that clearly shows that an RNA-first organism has no chance of beginning. Honestly, that a man with the brainpower of JS wasting his time on this when we need cures for cancer? Terrible.

It is like the SETI project with all these radiotelescopes scanning the heavens looking for one tiny trace of design while completely ignoring the design of every single living thing.

Your utter foolishness is what I am trying to tell you about. You should already know that the components for DNA and RNA cannot exist in a natural state by themselves, let alone build themselves, let alone manufacture their own information, let alone fix the chirality problem and the catalization problems. You call me stupid and you cannot see the obvious...sad.

Anonymous said...

"Childish Darwinists calling names...

Well, you're the one that called Stephen Hawking a 'looney' and Jack W. Szostak (a Nobel Prize winner, no less) 'deluded'. If you want to dish it out, at lest be capable of taking it...

...and arrogantly declaring how much smarter you are than me."

If you state that evolution predicts that bacteria should evolve into something else in a few decades no one even has to declare that.

Radar, here's my advice: if you really can't cope with dissenting views (and, judging from the tone of your recent comments, it seems you can't), just turn off comments.
You'll always be right and don't have to anger yourself over those pesky commenters cornering you time and time again.
Just do it.

AmericanVet said...

If I could not cope with dissenting views I would moderate the comments, wouldn't I? Also, you do not make me angry. I think you are deluded and frankly most commenters just fire off what they have been taught without really knowing the subject very well/

I do not thing bacteria will evolve into something else given a billion years. I am simply saying that Darwinism asserts that a few hundred generations of more complex organisms will evolve, so therefore why not bacteria?

The obvious answer is that nothing will evolve because nothing ever evolves in the Darwinian sense.

Anonymous said...

You're not really helping yourself, Radar.

Think carefully before you type Radar. Really, I mean it...this is painful to behold.

AmericanVet said...

Sure it is. Painful to listen to grown men still believing in fairy tales. Modern science knows that life cannot come from non-life. Men like Szostak are doing "check is in the mail" research that cannot succeed. Does he understand this or is he self-deluded?

Do you really think Hawking's assertion that gravity created the Universe is plausible? I mean, if there is no Universe yet there is no gravity, so...

The most brilliant men can be completely off-kilter. Hawking has gone off the rails, obviously. I suppose I need to do an entire blogpost to give you the things he says versus what science and common sense would say. But every single person who tries to give us a Big Bang hypothesis swings and misses at the initial "singularity" because they cannot describe it or attribute it to a cause nor can they assert how it comes to create a Universe or what could have possibly created it. You see, naturalism dies at the front end of the Universe because you need a non-natural Creator to produce the material, natural world.

These days BB hypotheses have dark matter and dark energy included in the equations although there is no observation of either. In this they resemble Darwinists since no one has observed one kind of creature evolving into another. Darwinists claim the fossil record is a representation of that process but it most certainly is not. They cannot find it happening in the real world. They have to tell stories of what they THINK might have happened.

The God Hypothesis doesn't need fudge factors or special corollaries to fit the evidence. It explains design and life and information. It fits the evidence nicely. A third grader can understand it and a genius can appreciate it.

Anonymous said...

"BB hypotheses have dark matter and dark energy included in the equations although there is no observation of either"

Dark matter has been observed. Do try to keep up.

Jon Woolf said...

Did you people not know that there is actually one sedimentary layer that can be found all over the globe?

Which one is that?

As far as radiometric dating, I just ran an Ian Juby two-parter on that.

When? I just looked around, and didn't see any such thing within the last couple of months.

Anonymous said...

"I do not thing bacteria will evolve into something else given a billion years. I am simply saying that Darwinism asserts that a few hundred generations of more complex organisms will evolve, so therefore why not bacteria?"

Ponder that question and see if you can come up with an answer. Because you not getting that is the part we've been laughing about.

And yes, it continues to completely annihilate any claims you make about being scientifically knowledgeable or whatever.

Anonymous said...

"Darwinism asserts that a few hundred generations of more complex organisms will evolve"

Incidentally... where do you think "Darwinism" asserts any such thing?

You seem thoroughly confused on a number of issues, including in this case an instance of basic logic. Observing microevolution and some macroevolution (at the level of speciation) over a few hundred generation does not dictate that an organism should evolve from one domain into another over a few decades. That is so far removed from anything that modern biology or the theory of evolution states that we can all just look at this and go "well whatever else Radar says, if this is what he thinks, then the rest of it must be pretty iffy as well". Like Woolf said, you're not doing yourself any favors here.

What if something else you said or thought was actually true? Why would you have that sullied with this nonsensical claim?

I know, I know, your pride is front and center. You're stuck. You can't get past that.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"The God Hypothesis doesn't need fudge factors or special corollaries to fit the evidence."

Surely you jest. God itself IS the ultimate fudge factor, the special corollary: an invisible, all-powerful, unpredictable entity that is pulled in to explain any gaps in human understanding until they are filled.

Peter said...

This is so unbelievably stupid. Please tell me this blog is a parody.

AmericanVet said...

Derision you have in spades. But evidence? Not so much. Work will keep me pretty busy for a day or two but it appears that I need to post more technical papers that demolish each one of the phony legs Darwinism stands on.

Your assertions about the sedimentary layers are hilariously wrong.

Your attempts to pretend anyone is going to disprove the Law of Biogenesis are pathetic. Trying to to the RNA route has already been proven not to work. Setting up a computer program to try to replace actual lab or field experiments will also not work.

You have no answer for information.

The few examples you can find of something vaguely resembling Darwinist evolution involve informtion stutter or loss.

No reasonable explanation for the formation of either the Universe or life not involving God exists. Since God must be the First uncauseed Cause, it makes sense to believe the Bible because the Bible has proven right on archaelogy and prophecies and the names involved in human history and both the creation and flood stories fit the evidence.

Atheists ignore evidence to avoid God. Then you say I have a pride problem? You are looking in a mirror. Your pride will not allow you to admit there is a greater being than yourself. This is the ultimate error cascade.

Anonymous said...

"Your attempts to pretend anyone is going to disprove the Law of Biogenesis are pathetic."

As has been explained ad nauseam, molecular abiogenesis by natural means has nothing to do with the law of biogenesis, which is about complex life forms. Nobody is trying to prove that complex life forms spring into existence fully formed.

Again, you completely misunderstand what you're attempting to argue against.

Anonymous said...

"Atheists ignore evidence to avoid God. Then you say I have a pride problem? You are looking in a mirror."

Remember all that stuff about worldviews that you've spent post after post on? Well then you must have figured out by now that atheists do have a different worldview. And you know what's part of that worldview? That God doesn't exist. No, seriously.

I'm not trying to avoid God any more than you're trying to avoid, say, Loki or Zeus. If you don't think something exists, then you can't simultaneously accept its existence and alter your behavior around such a belief. Get it?

Anonymous said...

"You have no answer for information."

Apparently we have none that you're capable of acknowledging or comprehending. That doesn't mean we haven't presented the answer to you a shockingly large number of times.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"it appears that I need to post more technical papers that demolish each one of the phony legs Darwinism stands on."

Perhaps you'll post technical papers that demonstrate how YECs interpret radiometric and ice core layer and tree ring data in a way that makes them line up with each other and with a timeline of 6,000 years?

I'm not holding my breath, but man, doesn't this get embarrassing for you to have to skip around this question all the time? And then come out with lines like "Derision you have in spades. But evidence? Not so much."?

Jon Woolf said...

Your assertions about the sedimentary layers are hilariously wrong.

Evidence please.

You have no answer for information.

By your definition, there is no information in DNA.

Oh, and for commenter 'Peter', above: if it's a parody it's a very good one. Sadly, it appears to be quite serious -- that is, the host is serious about claiming his nonsense is science, and most of us commenters are serious about having fun while we correct his myriad misstatements.