Search This Blog

Friday, September 30, 2011

Time to call the Darwinist Bluff! Scientism is not science!

You will find that this blog is a to some extent two differing worlds.  There is the world of the blogposts that I make, which consist primarily of news and scientific treatises and articles full of evidence.  Then there is the underworld of the comments threads, where mostly anonymous commenters attack this blogger's education, intellect, character and sanity while making baseless assertions and asking less-than-reasonable questions.  Some of you never go to the comments threads because that is the way most blogs work.  So I will tell you that, in the comments thread, if you have not gone there you will find a great deal of derision and self-congratulatory hooting about how silly it is to doubt Darwinism.  

Well, here is part one of a two-part (?) video blog from the noteworthy Creationist, Scientist and erstwhile adventurer Ian Juby in which he interviews six scientists who were once dedicated Darwinists...until they actually looked at the EVIDENCE.  Oh, that...evidence.

Since most of you do not read the comments threads, I will share a little.  One commenter tried to tell me that scientists generally agree that life came from non-life.  I suspect that Louis Pasteur would have set him straight.  But when I asserted that NO scientist has EVER come up with a way life can come from non-life because of the hard biochemical barriers that prevent it, one of them pointed me to one Dr. Jack Szostak.   Of course I knew he had not come up with a plausible scenario because I have thoroughly investigated the problem myself and read numerous papers on it and have published some of that information here on the blog.  But if you want a hoot?  Go to his bio page at Howard Hughes Medical Institute.  Here is the beginning: 

"How did life begin? Scientists may never know exactly how a swirl of chemicals came together to form the first living organisms some 4 billion years ago, but Jack Szostak is working to recreate a hypothetical model of this process in the laboratory."

Actually, real scientists proved that life only comes from life back in the 19th Century.  The Law of Biogenesis was established and that law has NEVER BEEN BROKEN.  God made life.  Louis Pasteur and numerous colleagues established this through many decades of experiments and it remains true today.  Scientism consists of a guy in a laboratory trying to design life and pretend that would prove it happened by chance?  It would be funny if it was not so tragic.  Imagine what a good mind like Jack Szostak could be doing if he wasn't playing mad scientist with amino acids? 

In any event, another scientist with a good mind, Ian Juby, has a terrific website and on the front page he declares who he is:

Who I am...
I am the president of CORE Ottawa, Citizens for Origins Research and Education.  I am also the director of the Creation Science Museum of Canada, a member of Mensa Canada and the president of the International Creation Science Special Interest Group for Mensans.

I have also had extensive personal studies in Origins for about the past eighteen years.
On this home page you can see and sometimes download projects I have collected for design and tech programs, read some of my creation science notes, check out my itinery for creation science presentations or book a presentation for your church, youth or private group.
 
 

"God cannot be a figment of my imagination because He is not at all what I imagined Him to be."
-C.S. Lewis

"People prefer to believe what they prefer to be true."
-Sir Francis Bacon

"The bible does not say 'Be Ye transformed by the removal of your mind'"
-Winkie Pratney

"That's the whole problem with science. You've got a bunch of empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder."
-Calvin


So I present to you about 43 minutes of video in which we meet six scientists who were Darwinists and who now realize that Darwinism is just like the Emperor's New Clothes...



Thanks to Kim K. for the cartoon, below!

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Actually, real scientists proved that life only comes from life back in the 19th Century. The Law of Biogenesis was established and that law has NEVER BEEN BROKEN."

Nor does Dr. Szostak's work have anything to do with it. The law of biogenesis was about complex life forms being fully formed at once and has nothing at all to do with abiogenesis at the molecular level, which is what Dr. Szostak's work is all about.

Why is that so hard to comprehend? Seriously.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"where mostly anonymous commenters attack this blogger's education, intellect, character and sanity while making baseless assertions and asking less-than-reasonable questions."

Would you say that it's a less than reasonable question to ask a YEC to explain 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?

a. You've claimed the world is approx. 6,000 years old.

b. You've claimed there is scientific evidence for this.

c. You've claimed that the scientific evidence against this (virtually every dating method known to man) is merely interpreted wrong.

Seems like a more than reasonable question to me...

... and predictably you've got nothing.

Care to amend your position, at least to a more reasonable "YECs haven't figured this out yet"?

radar said...

First, a biochemist would know that amino acids cannot exist in the wild under the conditions that might create them (and such conditions apparently never existed on Earth). Secondly, you need all left-handed amino acids linking up in just the right way in the right order without being catalyzed or destroyed by oxygen and water and formaldehyde. That is an unbreakable barrier. This doesn't even begin to explain the information contained or a hundred other problems that cannot be overcome because an RNA string nor a DNA string cannot exist by themselves even if they could be assembled by chance. You are ignorant of biochemistry if you think either RNA or DNA can just happen - or you are blinded by your religion like Jack Szostak.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

Still evading the YEC dating question, I see.

"First, a biochemist would know that amino acids cannot exist in the wild under the conditions that might create them (and such conditions apparently never existed on Earth)"

Which specific conditions are you talking about?

Regarding the amino acid question, how do you know which amino acids are required to start the process?

"This doesn't even begin to explain the information contained"

Once a process of replication with variation is started, information regarding better survival and reproduction/replication is accrued automatically.

However, as Woolf keeps pointing out, according to your own definition there is no information in DNA anyway, so you have some figuring to do.

"or a hundred other problems that cannot be overcome because an RNA string nor a DNA string cannot exist by themselves even if they could be assembled by chance. You are ignorant of biochemistry if you think either RNA or DNA can just happen"

Not surprisingly, a strawman argument: nobody's claimed that an RNA string or DNA string would spring into existence by itself, fully formed, nor that it would be assembled in its entirety by chance. Again, try to understand your opponents' arguments before you rail against them.

"or you are blinded by your religion like Jack Szostak"

And of course you ignore Dr. Szostak's actual work, opting instead for a simple ad hominem argument, and not even a good one at that.

So to sum up: you can't come up with a YEC interpretation of dating data that actually confirms a young Earth and instead you waste everyone's time (including your own) with a few logical fallacies.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"you are blinded by your religion like Jack Szostak"

What religion is he? Not that it's particularly relevant to his work, but I can't find any information about Dr. Szostak's religious preference anywhere.