Search This Blog

Tuesday, September 04, 2012

For the sake of the children, could Darwinists keep their dumb hypothesis to themselves?

I tried and tried and tried to get Darwinists to give me one answer to an easy question (if Darwinism was true) which is, what is a natural source of information?    Could they answer this question?   NO!

Now Bill Nye decided to leave a calling card of stupidity to the USA via YouTube.   I was amazed at the ignorance displayed by a guy who is supposedly an educator?   Then again, the USA may be having troubles in school in part because classic subjects are not being taught and nonsense like Darwinism is taught as fact when it does not even meet the criteria for a theory!  After all, it was a public school science teacher who taught me that ice floats because it adds more oxygen to the molecules as it freezes!   It was a lo-o-o-o-o-o-ong time until that concept was questioned and I realized what I had been taught was nonsense...as was billions of years of evolution...as was the idea that people feared the world was flat when Christopher Columbus sailed off for the New World.  Lots of dumb stuff taught as fact in schools.   To this day there are still textbooks with the Haeckel Embryo Chart being used!   Astounding!!!

Bill, you are an adult and if you want to believe life made itself and organisms designed themselves and the other nonsensical fairy tales Darwinists pass off as science, fine.   But operative science uses real scientific knowledge, not fairy tales.   We treat systems in organisms as if they are designed and we copy those designs, we learn from those designs.   Science began because scientists believed a Logical God had given man a logical world to explore.  They were right.   In the Darwinist mindset, a logical world doesn't actually make sense.  After all, Darwinism is built on nothing but random mistakes bopping together to have epiphany after epiphany to magically make wonderfully designed things.   It is impossible to the power of impossible.  Yet that is what Bill Nye believes in...and it is a faith and not a fact.   Darwinism is not a fact at all.   It is a belief system and a darned illogical one at that.  

Here is the answer to THAT!
Published on Aug 31, 2012 by

Bill Nye "The Science Guy" and Big Think have produced an emotional video challenging parents to restrict their children's education by censoring important scientific information. Creation Ministries International is dedicated to providing the data that they don't want you to hear. Think Bigger. Examine both sides of the origins debate then make a decision.

 For details see:
• 15 questions for evolutionists (http://creation.com/15-questions)
• 'It's not science' (http://creation.com/notscience)
• The religious nature of evolution (http://creation.com/evo-religious)
• Common structures = common ancestry? (http://creation.com/homology)
• Creationists believe that animals change too! (http://creation.com/train)
• 101 scientific evidences for a recent creation (http://creation.com/age)
The Bill Nye video can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU

Produced by:
Creation Ministries International

Category:

License:

Standard YouTube License

7 comments:

Anonymous whatsit said...

"I tried and tried and tried to get Darwinists to give me one answer to an easy question (if Darwinism was true) which is, what is a natural source of information? Could they answer this question? NO!"

Actually, we were in mid-conversation about this when you got all awkward and made for the exit. Come on, let's get this over with, answer these questions, then I've got two more for you and then we're done:

1. If you have a book with a certain amount of information in it and you buy another copy of the same exact book, you haven't gained any information. If you buy five copies of the same book and then buy another fifty copies of that same book, you haven't gained any information. Agree?

2. It's fair to say that five editions of a book (even though each book still only has five chapters) collectively contain more information than five copies of any one edition. Do you agree?

3. Which contains more information: the DNA of four lion cubs from the same litter, or the DNA of a lion, a tiger, a panther and a jaguar added together? Consider what instructions the DNA contains, and what the result of those instructions would be.

Anonymous said...

Link to the article from which Radar ran away when a few questions proved to be too difficult:

http://radaractive.blogspot.be/2012/08/the-great-darwinist-information.html

radar said...

All of the above noise is Darwinists running away from a simple question they cannot answer. Darwinists run away and shout back over their shoulders as they do it.

What is the natural source for information?

Adam Sandler-like attempts to avoid the answer no longer are acceptable. These questions are what Darwinists decided to use as a tactic when I exploded their typical responses. Let me explain:

First they tried to say "mutation plus natural selection." Epic fail. Information within DNA is used in natural selection and mutations need information to mutate.

Data was tried next. For instance, tree rings! Tree rings are not a message nor are they intelligent or information. If someone makes observations and pronouncements based on analysis of tree rings, those observations are information. Not the tree rings.

Another try was wind!!! Since wind can be measured for strength and direction. But it is the measurement of wind and not the wind itself that is information.

We were not in "mid conversation" on this at all. After years of dodging the question I challenged Darwinists to answer. As you can see, they cannot. So they lollygag around with BS instead.

Answer the question or give up? Darwinists have given up. Because those questions are not an answer!!! Can't do it, can you?

Anonymous said...

If the 'Darwinists' failed so massively, why not link to the article from your !_Ultimate Information Post?

Surely everybody will see the Darwinists' failure and your victory, right? Or maybe you are a bit nervous that people might notice who exactly was running away?

So go ahead, Radar, link to the article. I dare ya!

radar said...

If the 'Darwinists' failed so massively, why not link to the article from your !_Ultimate Information Post?

Surely everybody will see the Darwinists' failure and your victory, right? Or maybe you are a bit nervous that people might notice who exactly was running away?

So go ahead, Radar, link to the article. I dare ya!


Duh! Are you kidding? It is already linked on top of my links list. I tell people to go there so they can see first-hand that you guys have no answer at all. It is permanently linked. There is a reason it is permanent.

What next, you going to say Jimmy Hoffa has the answer, go ask him? Because obviously all of the Darwinist commenters all put together cannot do it. Wow.

Anonymous said...

As far as I can tell, there is not link from your !_Ultimate Information Post to the Great Darwinist Information Invitation article.

If you really think Darwinist failed so massively in that last article, why not link to it from your 'book'?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"We were not in "mid conversation" on this at all."

Yes, we were and still are, as anyone who goes to the end of the comment thread here can see: http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-great-darwinist-information.html

Here are the questions. You're not scared, are you?

1. If you have a book with a certain amount of information in it and you buy another copy of the same exact book, you haven't gained any information. If you buy five copies of the same book and then buy another fifty copies of that same book, you haven't gained any information. Agree?

2. It's fair to say that five editions of a book with changes from one edition to the next (even if each book still only has five chapters) collectively contain more information than five copies of any one edition. Do you agree?

3. Which contains more information: the DNA of four lion cubs from the same litter, or the DNA of a lion, a tiger, a panther and a jaguar added together? Consider what instructions the DNA contains, and what the result of those instructions would be.

"Because those questions are not an answer!!!"

No, but they lead to the answer. That was made clear even to you at the outset.