Search This Blog

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Information? Darwinists are knocked out! Go ahead, make my day!

Seems like I should recommend the CARM site today.   Here is an excerpt from a great treatise on Naturalists trying to deal with a Transcendent God: (Author - Matt Slick)

"I propose that if the Transcendent Christian God exists and if he were to enter into our material world, then any manifestation of him would have to be within the following criteria.
  1. Self-revelation - The Christian, Transcendent God could only be known through a decision on his part to reveal himself to us, since he exists outside of our material world. Also, his self-revelation would not be subject to the demands of his creation to "show himself" since it would be self-revelation, not external coercion.
  2. Authoritative - Such self-revelation would necessarily be authoritative in that what the Transcendent God would reveal about himself would be true, right, good, absolute, etc., and would be based on his transcendent nature. Furthermore, his self-revelation would not be self-contradictory, nor would it be the subject of human approval for its validity since this would be subjecting the transcendent to the non-transcendent which is a category mistake.
  3. Miraculous - Any self-revelation of the Christian Theistic, Transcendent God would be miraculous by definition and could not be explained by merely materialistic based hypothesis.
However, the atheist has problems. How would he test a Transcendent God's self-revelation? How would he test God's authority in a laboratory? Both of these lie outside the realm of the scientific method of observation, testing, and theory. Miracles, on the other hand, would be a bit different and might be subject to verification. However, they could not be repeated because such repetition would not suggest a Transcendent Personal God who acts out of his sovereign will. Instead, they would suggest phenomena based on the material realm and its properties since it would be repeatable and therefore predictable. So, the materialist atheist who wants scientific proof for God's existence is simply making the wrong request and hasn't thought the issue through."

Intelligent Design Science is the means by which testable, repeatable scientific experiments and real time observation has concluded that organisms are designed, among other things.   This means intelligence outside the realm of living creatures had to design them.   Also, we have overwhelming evidence that the Earth and the Solar System and the placement of the Solar System within an "arm" of our spiral galaxy and all the laws of nature are very precisely fine-tuned to accommodate this designed set of organisms and especially mankind.

Naturalism is not science, it is philosophy.   But it has rung headlong into DNA and other indications that information is part and parcel to life.   There is no natural source for information.  Naturalism cannot be a successful worldview anymore.

I'll remind you of a famous championship bout for the World Heavyweight title, between massive George Foreman and slightly smaller and quicker  Muhammed Ali.  From an reporter who watched the Zaire fight and was famed for his sports reporting, George Plimpton: 

rope-a-dope

Breaking A Date For The Dance


"
...For one sickening moment it looked as if a fix were on, that since the challenger was to succumb in the first round it would be best if he went quickly and mutely to a corner so the champion could go to work on him. It was either that or Ali was going through the odd penitential rite he seems to insist on for each fight, letting himself suffer the best his opponent has to offer. In either case, the consequences were appalling to consider. Ali's cornermen rose as one and, in the shrieks reserved for warning someone walking blindly toward the edge of a cliff, they urged their man to stop what he was doing and start dancing.

Far from obliging, Ali moved from the corner to the ropes—traditionally a sort of halfway house to the canvas for the exhausted fighter who hopes perhaps the referee will take pity on him and stop things. Here was Ali in the same spot, his feet square to his opponent, leaning far back out over the seats, his eyes popping wide as if at the temerity of what he was doing, while Foreman stood in front of him and began to punch—huge heavy blows thrown from down around the hips, street-fighter style, telegraphed so that Ali was able to slip and block many of them. Then, with the bell coming up for the end of the round, Ali came off the ropes. While Foreman's arms were down in punching position Ali hit him with a series of quick, smart punches in the face, the best of them a right hand lead that knocked the sweat flying in a halo. The vast crowd roared, and perhaps there were a few who began to sense that they were not in for a night of lunacy after all. Angelo Dundee noticed that almost immediately Foreman's face began to puff up.


Still, when Ali came back to his corner his men stormed at him as he sat on his stool.

"What you doin'?"

"Why don't you dance?"

"You got to dance!"

"Stay off the ropes...."

Ali, looking across the ring, told them to shut up. "Don't talk. I know what I'm doing," he said.
The second and third rounds were carbon copies of the first exciting round though, as Dick Sadler pointed out later, very few of the ingredients of scientific boxing were involved. No countering, no feinting, no moving; simply the hugely terrifying and unique process of seeing a man slowly drained of his energy and resources by an opponent swaying on the ropes, giving him—as Angelo Dundee was to say later—"a lot of nothing."

In the third round, in the midst of continued tremendous pressure from Foreman, Ali hit him some concussive shots, staggering him, and suddenly everybody except Foreman seemed to understand not only the plan but that it was working almost inevitably. Ali's cornermen looked at him as if they were a trio of Professor Higginses looking at their Eliza for the first time.

The notion of fighting Foreman out of a defensive position, blocking and making his opponent slug and miss to the point of weariness, was an idea Ali had only toyed with back in his Deer Lake, Pa. training period earlier in the summer. Then in Africa, spying on the Foreman training sessions, he watched the dogged-ness with which the champion pursued his sparring partners, cutting the ring on them and perfecting this practice to such a degree that Ali realized far too great a percentage of his own strength and resources would have to be devoted to the simple process of escape. The Deer Lake tactics began to make more sense. Indeed, the only weakness attributed to Foreman was that he tended to get flustered and wild if things were not going exactly his way. Perhaps the surprise of Ali's defensive tactics would have this result. It seemed worth trying. If it did not work, if the Foreman punches seemed too devastating, Ali could always (if he survived) go back to the dancing techniques everyone expected.

Later, amidst the storm of excitement in his corner after the third round, he told Angelo Dundee that it seemed to be working, that Foreman's punches were acceptable ("They're not that bad") and he told his astonished trainer that he was going out to continue to let Foreman pound at him.

In the fourth round Ali began to talk to Foreman. It is not easy to speak through a boxer's mouthpiece but Ali began doing a lot of it, more as the rounds progressed, as if it would quicken the matter of Foreman's destruction—"Is that the best you can do? You can't punch. Show me something. That's a sissy punch"—until he finally turned it around to what must have been a devastating thing for Foreman to hear: "Now it's my turn."

Still there was no change in Foreman's tactics. He kept it up, this useless exhaustion of energy, what Bundini Brown called the "emptying of the bank," the punches coming slower and more ponderously, until rising off his stool after the bell and coming across the ring at Ali, he seemed as pathetic in the single-mindedness of his attack plan as the mummies of Ali's beloved horror films, as programmed as the stiff-moving figure lurching through the mists after the life-giving draughts of tana leaves. Indeed, "The Mummy" had been Ali's name for Foreman, one of the inspired appellatives Ali finds for his opponents ("The Washerwoman" for George Chuvalo, "The Bear" for Liston) and nothing could have been more descriptive of Foreman's groping for him in the last rounds. "I am going to be the Mummy's Curse," Ali had said a few days before the fight.

By the eighth round nothing was left. Foreman was helpless. But here was another ugly possibility, that Ali would choose to toy with his opponent and physically tease him as he had Floyd Patterson in Las Vegas. Herbert Muhammad, the son of the Black Muslim leader, sent up word from his ringside seat that his father would not want Ali to play around. Bundini passed it on in the corner, that Herbert did not want his daddy, Elijah, disgraced.

But Ali was not toying with Foreman any more than a circling mongoose fools with a prey exhausted from striking. In the sad business of dispatching a hulk, he did it quickly and crisply with a combination of lefts and rights that sent Foreman flying to the canvas on his back..."

Foreman could not quite comprehend what had happened, laying on a trainer's table after the fight and being checked for concussion symptoms.   He'd been knocked out but could not admit to it.  He'd been beaten but could not absorb the concept.  He'd done what he'd always done before but this time it had not worked.  The Hunter had cornered the Game and the Game had put the Hunter's head on the wall! 

That is the plight of the Darwinist commenters.   For years I have let them give me every answer and non-answer in the book and for years they have failed to connect with an answer.  Darwinists are used to everyone agreeing with them.  They are used to being able to avalanche the opposition with a series of "facts" that they pretend "prove" evolution.  For years I have counter-punched with evidence that disproves evolution.   In some cases the fight will be a long one.

But the fight over Information is a different animal indeed.   Darwinists were not prepared to discover that "junk DNA" had purposes, that DNA itself would turn out to be a three-dimensional digital coding system that is far more sophisticated than anything mankind can produce.   They were not prepared for a question that pulls the rug out from under everything they believe.   They were asked to provide the natural source for information.  

Patiently over time I presented the case for information only coming from intelligence and presented examples and dissertations and abstracts and the opinions of experts in the information field.  After a great deal of preliminary discussion I set up the ring and squared off with them.   They pummeled me with a barrage of misinformation and wrong answers.   They tried to get out of the question by changing it.   They tried to ask questions to get away from answering THE QUESTION.  So after a few years of "rope-a-dope" I came out swinging by calling their bluff and presenting THE question:

What is the material source of information?   BANG 

What is the material source of information?   BOOM

What is the material source of information?   BASH

What is the material source of information?   KNOCKOUT 

Ali konks Foreman


We have been in an intellectual fight.  Left jabs, right crosses, combinations to head and abdomen, uppercuts...When the time came to finally end all the blather and provide an answer the Darwinists just kept pointing to rabbit trails because they had nothing left.  All of their bad answers had been refuted and they had no good answer.  So they figuratively yelled things at me over their shoulders as they ran away.   Once cornered and with nothing to offer they instead tried to engage me in conversations about quantities of information instead of answering the question.  

But it was the final exam.   The question was on the exam paper.   Answering the question with questions would be an automatic 'F' for failure.   Darwinists now have an 'F' and that is that.

The fight is over.  You see, there is no natural source for information.   I invite you to read every blogpost I have made with "Information" in the title and please check out the !Ultimate Information Post at the top of my links list.   You can search them all and find not one answer.   I really mean it.  Not one Darwinist had an answer for this question. 

Information is vital for life.  Your body has an amazing amount of information in every cell, information that not only monitors all the processes that keep you alive, but also information passed down from your parents and information that you can pass down to your descendents.    The information in DNA is not simply code that is used in reproduction, it is actively involved in keeping you alive every second of your life.  The DNA coding system is amazing, far more sophisticated than mankind's digital storage codes and it includes error-checking and repair mechanisms to weed out mutations.

Darwinists have it backwards.   Organisms are devolving from the original created kinds.  Designed systems for contingencies and redundancies are included and have helped most kinds to survive.  But mutations will continue to have negative effects on all living things and eventually mutations will pile up until life is no longer viable, should the Universe continue to exist.   

If you look at the comments thread for this post, I can predict what will be said - anything and everything except the answer to the question.   They will make accusations, they will resort to ad hominem attacks, they will ask pointless questions, they will complain but they will never answer that question.   Never.

The end

Go ahead.  Make my day.  ANSWER THE QUESTION.  Anything else is blather.   End of story!!! 

Make my day!

43 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's always the desperate ones that rush to declare victory prematurely.

Still can't answer those questions? Who would have thought.

I for Incomplete.

radar said...

First comment was just like I predicted. It is pathetic.

Hey, everybody, Darwinists cannot answer the question because there is no natural source of information. That means Naturalism is a worldview based on deliberate ignorance. Deliberate ignorance that pats itself on the back at the same time. Don't break your arm!

This is my blog. I asked a basic question and after years of no answer it is time to put up or shut up, not ask more questions.

After years my victory is not premature and it is complete because YOU CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION!

Do you really think people are dumb enough to not see that you are trying to worm out of a corner? Don't you understand that they can see you do not have the answer?

F is what you get and you earned it!

Anonymous said...

Radar, it is amusing to see that you are doing all this effort to claim victory while you could get an answer to your question by just answering three simple questions.

Yet you don't. Why is that? Why so eager to claim victory while at the same time running away from a constructive discussion? What is so terrifying about that? Apparently a whole lot.

It is also quite amusing that you don't seem to realise that by all your macho talk and chest pounding you actually admit defeat. You can't successfully defend your own claims so you have to cover your flight with as much noise as possible. Yet by doing that you actually attract attention to your failure.

But don't get me wrong, Radar. As far as I'm concerned, you don't need to answer those three simple questions. Please go on and claim victory so we can keep pointing to the questions you ran away from so bravely. It will be a lot of fun!

J for Just Too Funny

radar said...

Bullies and Braggarts tend to do the same things. You are running away while claiming victory.

I will not use bad language, because those are the rules. But there comes a time to tell it like it is and that I will do.

Bullies pick on people they can beat up. When they face someone who can take them on, they run away. Make no mistake, you are the ones running.

Those "three simple questions" are irrelevant and they are the curtain that the Wizard of Oz is standing behind. They are yet another in a long line of rabbit trails and put-offs and lies and stupid statements and etc.

I am calling you out and you don't have the goods. You anonymous commenters don't have the guts to admit defeat. Cowards! Your lies have caused a great deal of harm to humanity because a belief in Darwinism makes human life of less worth.

So babies get butchered in and partly out of the womb. That is on you. Look it up.

So racism had an official scientific basis to operate until general public shame caused Darwinists to stop proclaiming it. But not before you murdered and stuffed a few "aborigines" to put in museums. Look it up.

Eugenics came from Darwinism and so did Jim Crow laws. The Eugenics folks in the USA just changed their name to Planned Parenthood. Look it up.

You have my contempt for your cowardly sniveling evasions and your anti-science drivel and nonsense. You Darwinists have made a mockery of science. You cannot answer the question because you can't think of an answer and apparently you are too stupid to know that there is no answer because there is not a natural source for information.

radar said...

I also have a next question and they will not be able to answer that one either, so stay tuned.

If you see any comments deleted, it will be for language. FYI.

Jon W said...

"What is the material source of information?"

The question has no meaning for two reasons:

1) it assumes there is only one source of 'information.'

2) its most important term is undefined.

What is information?

radar said...

We defined information at the beginning using Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster. You are stalling, Jon. Why not just admit the obvious? Be intellectually ethical.

Anonymous said...

Radar, this whole article screams insecurity and desperation.

Really, why is it so important to scream 'Victory, victory'? What's there to cover up? Again: your eagerness to declare victory only reveals the fact that you actually lost. You're not fooling anyone.

Three simple questions to answer, Radar. You cannot do it. Face it: you cannot defend the foundations of your question. It's pretty hilarous that you claim victory for not getting an answer to a question you don't understand yourself.

Also, what's with the obsession with violence in this article? Do you really have that low self esteem that you think that images of people pointing guns and boxers punching each other strenghten your position? Are you that desperate? Alluding to violence to get it your way stopped being effective after the elementary school playground, Radar.

Stop the chest-pounding and macho talk and focus on the facts. In this case: the three questions you ran away from. As long as you flee from them the only correct conclusion can be that you are incapable of answering them.

But again: feel free to keep on running away and claiming victory; it will provide endless scope for entertainment.

H for Hilarious

radar said...

I'm guessing you never took any psychology classes in college? Or you did and didn't grade out well?
Because you are simply resorting to taunting. That works in grade school, maybe?

You cannot bait me into playing any more reindeer games. I didn't detect an answer in your (as I predicted) ad hominem attack. Derision is not an argument.

I told you the truth. I gave you a chance to answer one simple question and for years at that. I believe I first asked Darwinists to answer it in 2006. You still cannot do it. So you've been completely and utterly defeated. You just refuse to admit it to me. Wonder what is going on inside yourself, knowing that you actually don't know the answer and that means Naturalism is a failed worldview and you are basically living a lie?

So another comment that fit my prediction in the above article. These Darwinist commenters are pretty predictable, wouldn't you say?

"If you look at the comments thread for this post, I can predict what will be said - anything and everything except the answer to the question. They will make accusations, they will resort to ad hominem attacks, they will ask pointless questions, they will complain but they will never answer that question. Never."

Anonymous said...

Oh Radar, but I can make predictions too. I'm going to post three questions here and I predict that you will use all kinds of excuses for not having to answer them even though they deal directly with the topic of information:

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.

Go ahead Radar; make my day.

radar said...


"If you look at the comments thread for this post, I can predict what will be said - anything and everything except the answer to the question. They will make accusations, they will resort to ad hominem attacks, they will ask pointless questions, they will complain but they will never answer that question. Never."

So far they have done three of these things that I predicted, but have not answered the question. Way to go, Darwinists! You keep shooting yourselves in the foot!

Anonymous said...

" I'm going to post three questions here and I predict that you will use all kinds of excuses for not having to answer them even though they deal directly with the topic of information"

Like clockwork. Now that was an easy prediction, wasn't it? ;-)

Love the desperation in Radar's reply, though LOL!

Anonymous said...

First this:

"They will make accusations, they will resort to ad hominem attacks,..."

Then this:

"Cowards!"

and this:

"So babies get butchered in and partly out of the womb. That is on you."

and also this:

"apparently you are too stupid"...

Classy, Radar. Very classy!

radar said...

I was just telling the truth. You are cowards because you are afraid to answer the question, Fact.

Abortion began when Eugenics was accepted after Darwinism was accepted. So when Scientism took God out of the equation, baby killing was made legal. Fact.

Darwinists butchered people of color because they believed non-whites were less evolved. Fact.

What is the full title of Charles Darwin's first book? "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

Men and women and children and now babies are murdered by the millions because Darwinism convinced people there is no God and therefore no foundational morality.

As for stupid, you are apparently too stupid to understand that the entire idea was that I would ask you ONE QUESTION and you would answer it. Just like a final exam.

If I ask you to name at least six members of the Supreme Court and you give me three questions about:

*Whether the Supremes were better before Dianna Ross became the primary singer

*If rain has fallen in Seattle in the last two weeks and

*Why a carrot is more orange than an orange?

So you are either a coward or stupid, one. You pick.

radar said...

It gets worse. I am going to give you guys a chance to not answer another basic question probably Sunday. So start working on your excuses and rabbit trails concerning the Law of Biogenesis.

Jon W said...

Dictionary.com lists four definitions of 'information,' none of which seem relevant to genetics.

Merriam-Webster is more useful. One of its definitions for "information" is "the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects"

Hmm. Sounds like every DNA sequence contains information, regardless of how that sequence originated or what its actual content is. If sequence A mutates into sequence B, then both sequences contain information.

Next question: how do you measure how much information is in a specific genetic sequence? How do you tell if sequence A contains more or less information than sequence B?



Jon W said...

"Abortion began when Eugenics was accepted after Darwinism was accepted. So when Scientism took God out of the equation, baby killing was made legal."

A lie. Abortion has been around since long, long before any theory of evolution first appeared.

"Darwinists butchered people of color because they believed non-whites were less evolved. Fact. "

Also a lie. Racism has been around since long, long before any theory of evolution first appeared. In fact, racism was for a long time a doctrine of the very Church you belong to.

"... the Law of Biogenesis."

Does not exist.

radar said...

No, Jon, my church was not ever racist. In fact churches led the desegration movement in the South and churches led the fight to end slavery in the USA and England. Christians were on the front lines fighting Darwinists and racists. My particular church has people of all shades of color from very dark brown (commonly called black) to blue-eyed blondes.

Abortion was legalized in the USA in 1973 after people accepted the lie of Darwinism.

The Law of Biogenesis? You think it doesn't exist? You are in denial.

It is also documented fact that Darwinists both killed and skinned people of color to stuff and display in museums, they also put them in captivity like animals and took them around to display "primitive man" to their fellow Naturalists.

Darwinism was thematic to Hitler's regime and his primary excuse for butchering the Jews and feeble and crippled. It was an excuse he used to convince the German peoples that most other nations were governed by non-Aryan forces and therefore needed to be destroyed and ruled by Germany. That Hitler was not only not a "pure" Aryan himself and actually had Jewish blood in his ancestry makes the entire NAZI regime that much crazier. National Socialism tied to Totalitarian Eugenic Cleansing and a holy war with Hitler as the demi-god seated on his self-proclaimed throne.

If you dared to look it up, you would be surprised how many "respectable" and influential Americans praised Eugenics in the early 20th Century and how much great press Hitler got before the war began. But you will probably stay in your safe, snug little Darwin hole and keep trying to tell yourself that you are right.

But real science has realized that the DNA molecules are written in code and not random. This is going to be a slow realization that will begin to hit scientists as one by one they slap their heads and say, "Duh! Organisms are designed!"

Anonymous said...

"As for stupid, you are apparently too stupid to understand that the entire idea was that I would ask you ONE QUESTION and you would answer it."

If a very vague and possibly misleading question is asked the smart person can do two things:

1 - not answer the question at all
2 - ask for clarification to find out what exactly is asked.

Your commenters have put time and effort in the last option but you refuse to clarify. Hence: no answer. Your choice.

Really, it's no use Radar. As long as you are afraid to answer three simple questions you can scream 'victory' as much as you want; it will still be laughable as it proves you don't even understand your own question and are incapable of clarifying it in order to get an answer.

But what's with the aggression? You call your commenters stupid and cowards; it's not simply enough to claim victory but you like it to Darwinists being 'knocked out' (BOOM! BANG! BASH! - is this a Batman comic?). Images of a menacing Dirty Harry and people being punched up.
There is a clear undertone of anger and violence in your article, Radar. Why is that? I mean, you're the winner, right? You should be happy and rejoicing. Yet your whole article oozes desperation, frustration and anger.

Tell me, Radar, do you have secret fantasies of using physical violence against Darwinists? Do you sometimes feel the urge to punch one of your commenters? I mean, it wouldn't be the first time, would it?

radar said...

No, I prefer making Darwinists look foolish and irrelevant. This has been a war of ideas and your side lost. You think I am angry and frustrated? You guys are a source of hilarity over here. I love sharing some of your comments with my wife and friends. You guys really don't have a clue, do you? I never imagined all the different ways you'd come up with to avoid actually answering the question.

Yeah, I was a in a gang and on drugs and had a rough life before salvation. I matured enough so that I would not fight unless I was protecting my wife or grandchildren or someone who was disadvantaged. I may have felt like punching someone, but I restrained myself except for one guy who refused to quit - I threw him into a dumpster - but I didn't hit him. There was a mouthy punkish commenter who actually got my goat awhile ago but then I thought about it and remembered who I am and who he likely is.

Currently on this blog I exchange blows on the intellectual level with Darwinists. I cannot help that fact that you are disadvantaged by a failed worldview. But since you are bullies who are desperate to keep alternative scientific and philosophical ideas from being presented, I gladly beat the smack out of you with logic and evidence and reason.

Naturalism has been blown to pieces by DNA and ATP Synthase and Kinesin and all sorts of sophisticated and efficient machines designed by a higher intelligence. So Richard Dawkins and Isaac Asimov (for awhile) put their hopes in distant aliens because they were so desperate to avoid God.

Your evasions and excuses are unimpressive. I am using words like cowardly and stupid because the failure to answer the question reflects those concepts. I cannot respect an opponent who just keeps running away. It is the behavior you are choosing, after all.

Will even one of you man up and admit that there is no natural source for information? As I asked Jon, why not be intellectually ethical for once?

Anonymous said...

"No, I prefer making Darwinists look foolish and irrelevant."

Then why don't you? All you're doing now is make yourself look frustrated and desperate, and -I'm sorry to say - a bit tragic...

Anonymous said...

" I cannot respect an opponent who just keeps running away."

Very good, Radar. If you think a bit longer about that, some things might begin to dawn to you. Like, for instance, those questions you keep running away from. ;-)

There's hope after all...

radar said...

No there isn't because you are an evasive coward who will not answer the question. Now you are beyond funny and have reached boring. Goodnight.

Anonymous said...

Why do you complain about not getting an answer when it's abundantly clear you really don't want an answer?

All you have to do is put in a little effort to get it, but somehow you rather put the effort in complaining and declaring victory prematurely.

Maybe because you fear that the answer you get is not the answer you want? It is the only logical conclusion one can make...

Your choice.

Anonymous said...

"No there isn't because you are an evasive coward who will not answer the question. Now you are beyond funny and have reached boring. Goodnight."

Just curious, do you ever intend on using that "Derision is not an argument" line again?

Jon W said...

"No, Jon, my church was not ever racist."

Curse of Ham, anyone?

"Abortion was legalized in the USA in 1973 after people accepted the lie of Darwinism."

Your lack of knowledge of history is no longer surprising. Believe it or not, Radar, history did not begin with the United States, and the fact that something is illegal doesn't mean it isn't done. (For that matter, you don't even have Roe v. Wade right.) Abortion has been with us throughout human history, and so has the controversy over its morality. The oldest known reference to an intentional abortion comes from ancient Egypt over 3500 years ago.

"It is also documented fact that Darwinists both killed and skinned people of color to stuff and display in museums, they also put them in captivity like animals and took them around to display "primitive man" to their fellow Naturalists."

No. It's documented fact that people did these things. Whether or not they accepted evolutionary theory is irrelevant. Some of the most virulent racists of the 19th century were creationists, while Darwin himself was horrified by the way his fellow Europeans had treated native peoples. Meanwhile, P.T. Barnum made a fortune doing the same thing, taking advantage of curious rubes who had probably never heard of evolution.

"Darwinism was thematic to Hitler's regime and his primary excuse for butchering the Jews and feeble and crippled."

Hitler also called himself a Christian and claimed to be doing God's work in wiping out the Jews of Europe.

Anonymous said...

"If you dared to look it up, you would be surprised how many "respectable" and influential Americans praised Eugenics in the early 20th Century and how much great press Hitler got before the war began."

I'm well aware of all of that, actually. Are you aware that the powerful Roman Catholic 'radio preacher' Father Charles E. Coughlin was also a pro-Nazi, anti-semitic socialist?

"But real science has realized that the DNA molecules are written in code and not random."

Of course DNA isn't random, any more than river drainage patterns or volcaic eruptions are random. But that doesn't mean any of those things are intelligently designed. The laws of physics and chemistry produce non-random patterns too.

Jon W said...

As for the argument over 'the source of genetic information', the fact is that new genetic sequences arise by natural changes to existing genetic sequences. But if any of us commenters just said that as a bare, unsupported assertion, we'd be just as unscientific as you. Thus, we're trying to build a solid and convincing scientific argument, complete with well-defined terms, logical reasoning, and real-world examples.

The fact that you insist on getting an unsupported assertion rather than a reasoned argument only demonstrates that you know you couldn't answer the reasoned argument. Which (yet again) demonstrates the total intellectual bankruptcy of creationism and creationists.

Anonymous said...

Amen, Jon.

lava

radar said...

Jon is lying. His claims are false. If you agree with him you are supporting lies.

I made the argument over years and challenged you (after years and dozens of posts on the subject) to give me a natural source for information. Guess it hurts to know you can't do it. But resorting to lies makes it worse, Jon. New genetic sequences do not "arise" at all, they are produced within the cell. You cannot find any outside the cell.

Anonymous said...

Still three questions you run away from, Radar.
Let us know when you have found the courage to answer them; then we can work on giving you your answer.

Anonymous said...

"Jon is lying. His claims are false. If you agree with him you are supporting lies."

His claim that abortion was around long before "Darwinism" is easily verified. Do you think he's lying? And if so, on what basis?

radar said...

No, quit being ignorant. There is one question for you, quit dodging. Cowards all...

radar said...

Is there not even one adult among the Darwinists who can admit they do not have the answer?

Anonymous said...

"There was a mouthy punkish commenter who actually got my goat awhile ago but then I thought about it and remembered who I am and who he likely is."

Who was that then? The one you wanted to punch in the mouth?

Do you recall what he did or said to incur such wrath?

Anonymous said...

"Cowards all..."

"Is there not even one adult among the Darwinists who can admit they do not have the answer?"

Derision is STILL not an answer, no matter how many times you try it.

Anonymous said...

Your persistent evasion of the three rather easy question is duly noted. So is your constant use of derision to get away from the discussion.

Can you tell us - without any evasions - whether you think a process of reproduction with variation as filtered by selection could result in an increase in information?

Do you degree with that principle in general, and if so, on what specific, logical basis?

radar said...

"If you look at the comments thread for this post, I can predict what will be said - anything and everything except the answer to the question. They will make accusations, they will resort to ad hominem attacks, they will ask pointless questions, they will complain but they will never answer that question. Never."

To say that DNA does not contain information is a lie. To say that there is no Law of Biogenesis is a lie. To say that my church is racist is a lie. The curse of Ham indeed! I would say the number of folks who believe that are probably equal to the number of people who believe touching a toad gives you warts. Ignorant nonsense!

Jon, I have posted in detail the Darwinists who murdered and stuffed aborigines to display in a museum. I have shown that Hitler not only was NOT a Christian, he made all the German children go to his socialist youth outings and punished any who dared go to church.

Jon Woolf, I did post youtube clips of Hitler's Darwinist indoctrination and documentation of same, plus the testimony of a woman who lived under the Nazi regime and experienced the attack on Christianity and the indoctrination into the socialist/racist/mythology brew that was the theme of Hitler's propaganda.

Hitler went after the communists and Jews and the German Christians either fled or did nothing. Eventually Hitler came for them and they were helpless to stop him. Church either spouted the National Socialist Party propaganda or they were shut down.
The German Catholic church decided to get along with Hitler probably to keep as much property in Germany as they could? Those who enabled Hitler were complicit in his atrocities.

As for me answering any of your questions, you have to answer mine first. I do not need to "clarify" because the question is direct and in no way ambiguous.

Quit running, quit making excuses, quit lying and answer the question. Once you do I might be willing to discuss minor matters concerning genetics.

Jon W said...

New genetic sequences arise by natural changes to existing genetic sequences.

There. You have your answer. Shaddap and move on.

radar said...

"Jon W said...

New genetic sequences arise by natural changes to existing genetic sequences.

There. You have your answer. Shaddap and move on."


1) This does not answer the question. It is not even an attempt to give me a natural source for information.

2) Genetic sequences do not "arise" at all. The DNA process is scripted very carefully to replicate code for all the processes of the cell. If mutations occur there is a programmed response to correct that mutation.

By the way, for the uninitiated? Arise rhymes with lies. Jon may just be propagandized and actually believe what he says. But when it comes to DNA, sequences either replicate correctly or will contain errors despite the built-in error correction. So if mutations get in, that is a fall, not a rise. Mutations are usually detrimental or fatal. No scientist has ever identified a positive addition of new genetic information to a genome.

Some organisms can swap or share DNA. But this is like natural selection, it is a part of the design features meant to support life.

Trading information, breaking information and losing information all require information to be in existence. So you have not given me the answer. So suppose YOU shaddap?

Jon W said...

Did I call it, or did I call it? Radar mindlessly yaps out his demands over and over. When someone answers in the same tone, he ignores it and yaps on. When someone attempts to engage him in intelligent discussion, he pees on their feet and runs away to yap some more from a safe distance.

Anonymous said...

Wow Radar, you stooped to a new low...and that's no mean feat...

radar said...

What a comments thread! I came by to see if anyone had answered the question - what is the natural source of information?

Never answered because there is no natural source of information. I doubt I will see Jon come back when he was caught in an outright lie and became too embarrassed to make any comments using that moniker. He may come in as simply "anonymous" but I never bother to check. It is irrelevant.

I suppose the American public school system is partly to blame here. No one is taught to think critically so they have a great deal of trouble with logic and evidence. They want to be told what is fact and not even have to question it so they can go back to their video game or television show or whatever they entertain themselves with when not exemplifying ignorance here on the comments thread.