Search This Blog

Sunday, November 27, 2011

No Greater Faith - believers in evolution aka Darwinists

I believe in God and do so fully certain it is a wise thing.   Those who do NOT believe in God as Creator of all believe in UM instead.   I will argue that to believe in UM takes far more faith than a belief in God and is in fact the greatest faith of all, since it is based on vast amounts of nothing.   What is UM, you ask?   It stands for Unattributed Miracles.   Darwinism of all sorts, in fact evolution as an explanation for the organisms found on the Earth, and all forms of Atheism all depend upon UM.  It is their substitute for God.   They call it random chance but frankly the laws of statistics put the lie to that.  There is no chance statistically that one protein could ever develop by chance in the so-called 13.7 billion years of the Universe...one protein!   You are expected to believe that billions of organisms exist, all different from each other at least minutely, when not even one protein could ever form by chance???  

Sometimes a movie or television show will present someone meditating by repeating "Om" over and over and over.   Actually back in the days when I was trying every way possible to God I tried meditation but we would use a phrase and not one meaningless sound.  Nevertheless, Om no doubt has all the power that UM has, every bit, which would be the null set.  I expect that rational Darwinists will eventually come to the realization that UM is actually NOTHING and lose their faith.

UM has not been demonstrated to have any actual power itself - Unless you consider being a stand-in for God and a step on the road to Hell to be of significance.   So I suppose I must admit that UM has some power.   Like the power of the emptiness of the pothole that pops your tire or the lack of gasoline in your tank that leaves you stranded out on a country road - that kind of power.   UM is the bridge that is not there when you want to cross the river or the missing lifeboat you seek when the ship is sinking. 

There is a wonderful movie from 1979, Breaking Away, which features several well-known actors very early in their careers, including Dennis Quaid and Daniel Stern (his debut) and Jackie Earle Haley, and stars Dennis Christopher in the lead role.   The plot revolves around four young men who have graduated high school and have not yet found their next step and are aimlessly wandering the area in and around Bloomington, Indiana and the campus of Indiana University.   Christopher plays Dave Stoller, a once-sickly youngster who has become fixated on bicycle racing and all things Italian, in the process being remade into an athlete capable of winning trophies road racing and also a poseur living life as an Italian somehow stranded in the land of Hoosier.   He is the delight of his mother and the cause of great frustration to his father.   He hero-worships the Italian racing team named Cinzano



There is a crucial moment in the film where Dave discovers an awful truth that he describes thus: "Everybody cheats. I just didn't know."  His world turns upside down.  It is a wonderful coming-of-age movie, able to stand up to more famed films like American Graffiti in that genre.  I suppose they are my two favorite such movies.  Perhaps it is because I spent much of my childhood in a town much like Bloomington but nevertheless as a teenager lived out much of that fateful night in Graffiti.   Our city had a "merry-go-round" where we drove our cars and showed off our girlfriends to onlookers or else hoped to attract new girlfriends with our shiny waxed and Thrush-rumbling jacked-up dual-exhausted rides.  Ah, memories...


Part of the theme of Breaking Away and in fact many movies is the loss of faith.   There is a point where Dave Stoller loses faith.  There was a point in my life when I lost faith.  In my case, my faith was in myself and my ability to reason and thereby figure out the meaning of life on my own.  When I lost that faith I decided to simply live to party and please myself until the day that I died.   Then God found me.  Then I discovered that faith in God was more than simply a belief system, it was Truth.   


Now I have an unshakable faith in God that has been tried and tested in the fires of trial and tribulation and logic and the various assaults of Darwinists.   It turns out that Creationism is far better science than Darwinism and the artificial insertion of mandatory naturalism not only in investigation but ALSO HYPOTHESES AND CONCLUSIONS has handicapped science and brought on Scientism! But I have also made an interesting observation.   Darwinists have incredible faith!   In fact, they must have the greatest faith of any believers on the face of the planet.  They believe in UM! Consider the following:


  • They believe in an Universe that begins without a cause agent.
  • They believe in logical laws of science formed within a Universe that came from random chance.
  • They believe that information has formed all by itself.
  • They believe that life has formed all by itself.
  • They believe that sentience has formed randomly within mankind for no discernable reason whatever.
  • They believe that evolution has converted muck into mankind with no design or intentionality involved.

I could go on and on.  Those assertions of Darwin that birthed Darwinism were made by a man who himself agreed that, if there was no continuum of transitional fossils following the Cambrian Explosion or if there was no continuum of primitive organisms found within the fossil record before that layer then his hypothesis would be a failure.  So if there was a 21st Century Charles Darwin I believe he would deny his own hypothesis and with good reason.  



While random commenters try in vain to bog me down with an attempt at putting ice cores and radiometric dating and tree rings together to define a precise age of the Earth, I point out to them that their hypothesis has no foundation and their emperor has no clothes.   The fossil record is catastrophic, not uniformitarian.   There is no standard geologic column.   There are numerous polystrates, megagbreccias, out-of-order layers and anomalous fossils to completely destroy the fossil record as a foundation to Darwinism.   Organisms are miraculously preserved in great quantities (a sign of near-instant anaerobic burial), quantities of organisms that are fully developed and not transitional forms.  A look within organisms shows design and information far more sophisticated than man is capable of reproducing.  The Universe is finite and Darwinists have no answer for a causation.   Well, they have answers but they are pitiful and illogical in the extreme.  

Richard Sternberg was fired from the Smithsonian Institute for daring to present Dr. Stephen C Meyer's peer-reviewed paper, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” in the Smithsonian's  Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239).

Sternberg was fired, but not by UM.   Bureaucrats fearing the ruling paradigm got him out of the place before he "infected: everyone, as if Intelligent Design was like rock and roll dancing and the Smithsonian was about to become Footloose?  Ironically, the Christians are the censors, the rigid controllers of the accepted order in the movie but in real life IT IS THE ATHEISTS!!!



So UM is apparently so weak and helpless that mortal men dare not dissent lest other mortal men punish you for your transgression.   UM has not been demonstrated to have any actual power itself - Unless you consider being a stand-in for God and a step on the road to Hell to be of significance.   So I suppose I must admit that UM has some power.   Like the power of the emptiness of the pothole that pops your tire or the lack of gasoline in your tank that leaves you stranded out on a country road - that kind of power.   UM is the bridge that is not there when you want to cross the river or the missing lifeboat you seek when the ship is sinking.   If that is power, then UM does have a kind of power.  Just not the kind I want.

There is a brilliant blog named Buy The Truth.   I think that the August 1, 2011 post is fantastic and I hope you go read it.   In fact I will probably post it soon.   For now I will simply post an excerpt from the beginning and a comment in response to a man who believes the number 23 explains everything:


"Marcus du Sautoy, Polyani Professor for the Public Understanding of Science (having succeeded Richard Dawkins in the Chair), is currently presenting a series of TV programmes about mathematics and nature entitled ‘The Code’. Viewers could be forgiven for believing that what he is presenting is a mainstream view of mathematics rather than peddling his own peculiar brand of atheistic metaphysics. Since no appropriate caveats have been employed by the BBC, we feel it necessary to make a few of our own.

Firstly, Du Sautoy’s view that, as the Pythagoreans expressed it, ‘Number is everything’ is of very ancient pedigree; but, nothwithstanding, it is undemonstrable (which should be anathema to a mathematician) and a faith-based religious concept. Secondly, philosophers of mathematics and informed students of mathematics know that there is, to date, no satisfactory understanding of the relationship, if any, between mathematics and reality; to suggest that there is a relationship, and what such a relationship might be, is an act of faith. And thirdly, it is very unfortunate for scientists to be working with mathematics as though mathematics itself is the original reality to which the physical world ‘must’ conform through such things as ‘laws’; science has been hideously corrupted in the last 80 years because of this.

Some Christians might be heartened to see and hear Du Sautoy suggesting that numbers are at the root of all reality, that this is in some way all grist to the mill of Intelligent Design. Not so fast: Du Sautoy is an avowed atheist (who not very wittily gives his religion as ‘Arsenal’) who by his own admission is trying a more ‘softly softly’ approach than Richard ‘The Rottweiler’ Dawkins (whom all can see is a bigoted fanatic) and is not appealing to design, or even apparent design, but to some mysterious entity he calls ‘The Code’. A code at the very least implies information content, but The Code (as a proper noun and with the definite article) suggests something unique and powerful. Thus Du Sautoy:
…underlying everything that surrounds us, from the natural world to the cities we live in, there is a hidden code that explains why things look and behave they way they do.
[This hidden code (‘The Code’)] has the power to unlock the laws that govern the universe.
The Code is the truth of the universe, and its numbers dictate the way the world must be.
So, this hidden code, this entity that Du Sautoy calls ‘The Code’, has total and complete explanatory power, is identical to Absolute Truth, can lead us into All Truth, and is completely deterministic. This is unquestionably a religious position. And it is none other than the old heresy of Pythagoras, the pagan Greek philosopher, re-worked by gnostics, Kabbalists, Freemasons, Rosicrucians, Illuminists, and now, it appears, New Atheists. What a wheeze if they can pull this one off!..."

Don't be afraid to read it all!



"Michael Jordan wore number 23, so therefore the number 23 must be the most significant number in the world!!! 

How can anyone state with authority that “we have to accept that time started with the big bang” when there is no accepted big bang theory that does not include numerous fudge factors? Where is the dark matter and dark energy if not observed and why should we accept that they exist? By what means does a “singularity” appear and by what means does it “explode” and why should we accept that a Big Bang is a naturalistic explanation for the Universe when a singularity appears as if by magic and explodes by magic? Then there is the magical Planck Time when for 10^-43 seconds all rules of physics are ignored in order to accommodate an hypothesis which still requires that (approximately) 96 per cent of the Universe that cannot be detected by man must nonetheless be there?

Every big bang hypothesis I have seen seems to be a case of trying to fit an automobile into a mailbox. Not one of them can account for what we observe in existence today. Also the Nebular Hypothesis appears to be another case of magical thinking as we do not observe it happening and what we know indicates it will never be observed. No one knows how stars are formed, either. 

In fact, those who refuse to consider the idea that a finite Universe must have a First Cause invariably will find a substitute for God, a substitute with the attributes of God without the name. In the end, this is where Du Satoy is taking us, the idea that numbers are God. Evolutionists believe that random chance is God. 

“That’s the whole problem with science. You’ve got a bunch of empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder.”
- Bill Watterson

That fractals and patterns recurring throughout the Universe are observed and yet at the same time originality (no two people have the same fingerprints, no two snowflakes appear to be exactly alike, etc.) is also observed points towards design by intelligence. That the Universe is also full of beauty indicated a Designer with an intent to share that beauty with beholders. All 20,000-some species of butterfly have their own gorgeous patterns. All of them take four forms during their lifetime – egg, caterpillar, chrysalis and butterfly. Is there any conceivable way that a chrysalis can reproduce and evolve up to the level of a butterfly? How does a naturalist explain such a thing? 

Stephen C. Meyer has pointed out that the only explanation we have for design and information in the natural world is intelligence. For this reason he has worked in the field of Intelligent Design, doing what can be done with empirical science to point at the obvious, that conclusion that naturalists detest with all their might, that creation ex nihilo requires a Creator. Otherwise you are left with what I call UM (unattributed miracles) which is actually God with a different label. Du Satoy is not saying anything new. Neither is Hawking. They are all just looking for ways to avoid the unavoidable God."

Funny thing, the Christians I know, most of them, can have a LOT of fun.   Practical jokes, complicated pranks, impromptu games of all kinds, goofy youth group stunts, scavenger hunts, etc.   We go dancing and do karaoke and go to ball games and enjoy the occasional alcoholic beverage.   We chase kids around with biffers and turn out the lights and hide from them.   We play blind volleyball and strobe light volleyball.   We always have a great Christmas party for the youth staff with the highlight being the white elephant gift ritual where people can steal gifts or open new ones.   You might get a $80 dollar collectible or you might get a hideous copper and corkboard wall plaque your wife and friends require you to keep on the wall for a year's time.   Christians that I know understand we are free to cut loose and celebrate living.  Oh, and we also know Who made the Universe and why He made it.   Just ask...

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, Radar lies in a comment section (see previous post), is caught, promptly puts up another post to run away from dealing with his "mistake".

Radar, since you are a YEC, could you please explain why people should trust you when you do stuff like this?

radar said...

Ad hominem attack = "since you are a YEC..." Should I not reply, since you are NOT a YEC you cannot be trusted? Same logic.

I found the quotes and attributed them for "360 varves in 160 years" it was just not the same paper Jon read.

FYI - Lambert, A. and Hsü, K.J., 1979, Nonannual cycles of varve-like sedimentation in Walensee, Switzerland: Sedimentology, v. 26, pp. 453-461.
= "number of laminae ranged between 300 and 360 instead of the expected one per year or 160."

I read lots of papers. I have cited the source on the comments thread. The sources I cited were among those I used in my original post. I confused the papers and have corrected my mistake. I was going from memory. But funny how both Jon's paper and the Sedimentology publication both give us 2-3 varves per year in "normal" circumstances?

Jon did not address the Mt St Helens question at all. The paper he cited was a minor source that merely pointed out yet another study done that shows varves do not equal years.

Instead of "running away" I am piling up evidence you Darwinists cannot deal with, which is why you keep avoiding the substance of the blog posts and major in the minors. Because you cannot deal with the big questions.

For instance, how do you get from absolutely nothing to a singularity? Hmmmm?

Anonymous said...

"Ad hominem attack = "since you are a YEC..." Should I not reply, since you are NOT a YEC you cannot be trusted? Same logic."

That's not what an ad hominem attack is. An ad hominem attack is when you dismiss an argument because of the source.

In this case, Jon has posed a claim that YECs cannot be trusted, on the basis that when they make a claim and one goes to check the source, it turns out not to confirm what the YEC claimed in the first place. And that's what happened here: you made a claim, we checked it out, it wasn't confirmed, so there: you're a YEC, and you can't be trusted. Since your blog is riddled with this kind of stuff, you can't be trusted to make truthful mistakes.

Anyway, thank you for admitting your mistake. It's progress, I guess. So Jon wasn't being deceptive, was he?

"Instead of "running away" I am piling up evidence you Darwinists cannot deal with, which is why you keep avoiding the substance of the blog posts and major in the minors. Because you cannot deal with the big questions."

Let me know when you have scientific answers to the big questions. You're playing on a different field and comparing apples and oranges.

Your inability to answer HLH's question about dating data makes it pretty clear that you can't proceed from science, only mythology.

"For instance, how do you get from absolutely nothing to a singularity? Hmmmm?"

Who says there was nothing before the singularity? Hmmmmm?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"There is no chance statistically that one protein could ever develop by chance in the so-called 13.7 billion years of the Universe...one protein! You are expected to believe that billions of organisms exist, all different from each other at least minutely, when not even one protein could ever form by chance???"

If you seriously think that this is what mainstream science claims... you're so far behind on your reading that it's not even funny.

AmericanVet said...

The odds of one protein forming by chance are 1 in 10^74 power.

I write this blog because mainstream science has been taken over by Scientism and has become the Church of Naturalism. Ridiculous unfounded claims are preached to the public. Mainstream science professes to believe nothing created everything by no means and for no reason. You call that science, I call it religion! A very illogical and silly one, at that!

But that will change. Once Stalin had an iron grip on the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain but eventually that whole thing fell apart, the Berlin Wall came down and German citizens were kicking holes in the sides of Trabants because the smelly two-cycle East German vehicles were so badly engineered. Darwinism is a Trabant. In needs to be junked.

AmericanVet said...

For trivia junkies, more about the Trabant:

"This is the car that gave Communism a bad name. Powered by a two-stroke pollution generator that maxed out at an ear-splitting 18 hp, the Trabant was a hollow lie of a car constructed of recycled worthlessness (actually, the body was made of a fiberglass-like Duroplast, reinforced with recycled fibers like cotton and wood). A virtual antique when it was designed in the 1950s, the Trabant was East Germany's answer to the VW Beetle — a "people's car," as if the people didn't have enough to worry about. Trabants smoked like an Iraqi oil fire, when they ran at all, and often lacked even the most basic of amenities, like brake lights or turn signals. But history has been kind to the Trabi. Thousands of East Germans drove their Trabants over the border when the Wall fell, which made it a kind of automotive liberator. Once across the border, the none-too-sentimental Ostdeutschlanders immediately abandoned their cars. Ich bin Junk!"



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658533_1658030,00.html #ixzz1f36hP6xm

AmericanVet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AmericanVet said...

Trabant

Anonymous whatsit said...

"The odds of one protein forming by chance are 1 in 10^74 power."

Based on what assumptions exactly? Let me guess - taking evolution out of the equation?

"Mainstream science professes to believe nothing created everything by no means and for no reason."

Weren't you schooled on this just recently? No, mainstream science doesn't profess this.

Again, try to understand what you're arguing before you try to argue against it.

AmericanVet said...

Evolution is not magic. Let's discuss the so-called singularity at the beginning of big bang hypotheses:

Whatsit, I will gladly learn. So, tell me, what existed before the singularity? What made the singularity? What was the singularity? Let's start there. Waiting...

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Whatsit, I will gladly learn. So, tell me, what existed before the singularity? What made the singularity? What was the singularity? Let's start there. Waiting..."

Waiting for what? We don't know. But it's wrong to assume that the starting point was nothing - or even that there was a starting point in a way that we can understand.

Anonymous said...

O.M.G., pure YEC gold. If I were to satirize you or this blog, Radar, I don't think I could come up with anything better than this.

"I write this blog because mainstream science has been taken over by Scientism and has become the Church of Naturalism. Ridiculous unfounded claims are preached to the public. Mainstream science professes to believe nothing created everything by no means and for no reason. You call that science, I call it religion! A very illogical and silly one, at that!"

Seriously though, how you can type stuff like this, Radar, and still keep your head from exploding, is beyond me. Sir, you are clearly a nut of the highest order. Kudos.

-Canucklehead.