Search This Blog

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Why Darwinist geology is faulty (pun warning) and...the irrefutable evidence for evolution? It must be around here somewhere?




Thanks, Ian, always informative and fun!

Now, before we begin explaining the basics of Creation Science, here is the irrefutable evidence for Darwinism:


Wait for it....Had it around here somewhere?  Darn it!

Oh, yeah, I forgot...there IS NO IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE FOR DARWINISM!!!

Sorry, I looked everywhere.   Lots of assumptions and just-so stories but they mostly boil down to. "It or (we) or them (or these) is (are) here, so therefore (who or whatever) MUST have evolved because if not, then we have to turn to...(gasp, this is really hard)...G...(come on and say it) God!!!"

You don't think so?   If you read enough Richard Dawkins, he admits that everything looks designed and that organisms are full of information BUT since he doesn't want to believe in God, he simply affirms that everything had to come from some kind of random and unexplained processes.

What Darwinists do to avoid even discussing God is to present some fake obscure deity-lite such as an old Fiji god like Dakuwaqa who represented different things to different Fijans and was sometimes portrayed as a shark and/or a fish god.  The Pacific Islanders often had a worship culture in which they venerated various land animals, birds and fish and also even trees or vegetables.   In other words, a form of Pagan worship of nature rather than the Creator of nature and existence.   

It is easy to make fun of Dauwaqa or the Norse Loki or other such mythological figures.   Many of the "gods" of Norse or Greek or Roman tradition are simply the ancestors of the people being elevated in stature to have super-human abilities while still displaying human emotions and desires.  Such obvious strawmen have nothing at all to do with the concept of the Creator God who gave mankind the Bible and the history of the antediluvian culture as well as crucial events in human history.  

Darwinists like to say that "goddidit" is unscientific and useless and therefore they will not consider God when studying origins.  But how does "nothingdidit" or "chancedidit" have any superiority as part of an explanation for origins?  At least God has historical evidence to support His claim to be the Creator of the Universe.   Darwinists have Chance, the Evolution Fairy.   I think the Bible is far more authoritative than some guy named Charles Darwin, who cobbled together the work of both Creationists and Atheists along with a few lies (that he likely believed) like the works of Charles Lyell and began putting out books promoting evolution.  Darwin's evolution is the old Pagan idea of the world creating itself with a shiny new cover page and a few observations about organisms thrown into the mix.  But Natural Selection was identified by a Creationist and fits the Creationist model.  

Animal (plant also) husbandry, which is simply selective breeding, has been practiced by mankind for thousands of years.   We have bred animals and plants to fit our specifications by breeding OUT the attributes not wanted and thereby getting the particular attributes desired.   Speciation involves pre-existing information being selected from to allow organisms to react to the environment and remain in existence.  

When you try to talk real science, Darwinists quickly get out of their element.   Allow me to present a comment from the comments thread:


 Anonymous said...
"The Law of Biogenesis states that life comes only from life. Therefore for life to have been formed on Earth, it requires a supernatural event." (me)

Nope. The Law of Biogenesis states that complex life only comes from complex life, so your conclusion is flawed. Complex life can also have evolved from simpler life, and since self-replicating molecules can form naturally, setting a process of reproduction with variation in motion, a natural path of evolution is possible. None of this requires a supernatural event.

Okay, what in the world is he talking about?   I can assure you that Pasteur and the other scientists of his day experimented on the simplest of organisms and every experiment always came out with the same result.  Whether bacteria or buffalo, no life can come from non-life, life only arises from life.   As far as "simple life" goes, we already have that.   We have some organisms that have devolved to the point that they cannot reproduce without a host but such organisms (viruses, for instance) still only can reproduce from viruses.  A virus can exist without a host, some kinds for seconds and some for hours or even days depending on the variety.  But no virus can reproduce without a host because it is not really complex enough to be called "life" as it is a non-cellular package of DNA/RNA instructions that must inhabit a cell of another organism to be able to reproduce and exist for any length of time.   Viruses may well have been a simple form of life that devolved to have lost an ability to live without a host.  But they are hardly evidence for evolution, they are, if anything, the opposite.  

Self-replicating molecules cannot form naturally.  In technical terms, we call such a statement "a lie."  There are no safe havens for the building blocks of life in the natural world, they must be contained within the cell to exist.  When a Darwinist lies to you like this, don't let him get away with it!   Ask him to give us an example of simple life forming or beginning to form.   Evidence?   There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE for such a statement.  It is a complete bald-faced ludicrous lie.  Basic chemistry prohibits the formation of the components of DNA, for example.   The ATP Synthase motor must be contained in a cell.  ADP must be converted to ATP in the cell to power the workings of the cell and also to power DNA tasks.   DNA cannot exist without the cell.  But the information to build the cell and the ATP Synthase motor is located in the DNA (most of it) although the cell also holds information and is involved in reproduction as well as the millions of operations taking place within cells every second.  There are little motors and tubules and transporters and all sorts of other mechanisms and systems that are interdependent.   In just one human cell the concept of "chicken or egg" is actually far worse for Darwinism.   You need DNA and RNA and meta-information and the cell itself and the ATP Synthase motor and many other components to allow the cell to live and operate...and you have about 100 trillion cells in your body!

It gets worse, because you have about ten organisms living in your or on you for every cell in your body.  Some of them are simply living off of you but some help you digest your food and are very helpful to you.  So how did the organisms that live off of other organisms come about without the hosts?  How did hosts come about without the companion bacteria needed to help break down the food they eat?   How could DNA be formed when the components of DNA do not naturally form in the wild and certainly cannot survive  in nature without being sheltered by the cell?  

Then it gets even worse because DNA is not simply a bunch of sugars, they are containers of information.  Yes, the exact order of the DNA strand is critical both in the process of reproduction and also for the continual operation of the cell itself.  DNA is like sentences with stop codons acting as periods, if you want to think of it that way.   In fact, the way DNA operates within the cell is remarkably complex and sophisticated and quite precise.   Any mistakes in the code will be identified by a system designed to be a quality control process, finding mutations, cutting them out and replacing them with the correct "letter" in the particular sequence of the four-part alphabet of DNA - CATG.  Very few mutations get past this corrective system and those that do are likely to be hazardous or even fatal to the organism. I have not even mentioned RNA or meta-information or the role the cell itself plays in reproduction.   

There is no "simple life" at a level below what we know now and there never will be.  This Darwinist fairy tale will be the ever-missing homework that is eaten by an infinite number of dogs because the evidence is not there and never will be there.   Desperate Darwinists have pounded their collective heads on the wall of life and come up blank and there is absolutely no evidence at all that indicates they have the slightest chance of succeeding in making life out of natural materials themselves, let alone posit a scenario by which it happened by chance.   If life did not happen by chance then there goes Darwinism into the trash can.   You see, if you cannot produce life naturally then why should we believe you can find evidence that life then evolved into complex forms naturally?   Because we have not one example of this happening ever in the history of science.   

You see, evolution requires simple organisms to develop new features by mutations being selected by natural selection.   But no life, nothing to evolve.  Plus in order for natural selection to operate, it must have choices to select from and those choices are information contained within genetic material.   If all you have is a plain wooden block, you cannot use wooden blocks to spell out a word.  But if you have a few hundred wooden blocks with various letters and numbers written on their faces, then you can spell out nice long sentences and transmit information.   But you need the letters and numbers first.  So when an Darwinist would argue that randomly throwing a bunch of blocks with letters and numbers out on the floor would occasionally and randomly provide a word or words, remind them that they have no source for the letters and numbers in the first place.

Now think of the DNA string of an organism as being a set of instructions for building and operating a space shuttle.   Imagine how much information is required, the blueprints and specifications of the machinery needed to build the shuttle, the description of the raw materials and how they are to be obtained and processed, the order in which the machines are arrayed, the instructions for the workers who will do the assembly and the schedules for those workers, the foremen needed to oversee operations, engineers to not simply produce the specifications but for process control and checking for variations to be certain all aspects of the shuttle will be within the exacting tolerances required to trust the lives of astronauts leaving the safe atmosphere of Earth to survive both takeoff and landing as well as the mission in outer space itself.   For the shuttle to complete a mission, astronauts must be found and instructed, so books and videos must be prepared by authors to instruct them and teachers groomed to teach them.   Physical trainers must be sure they are prepared for the journey, intense training is required for the crew to learn and be expert at the jobs they must do to allow the shuttle to take off, complete the mission and then land.

I am just scratching the surface of all the workers and students and experts required, all the factory resources and engineers and scientists involved, all the raw materials and all the efforts of man and machine required to locate and harvest the materials and prepare them to be used in assembly of the shuttle.   How about the space center in Houston and the launching area at Cape Kennedy and all the people and computers and various vehicles and machines and buildings and power sources and...do you see where I am going?

The conception and birth and life of one human being is far more complex than an entire fleet of space shuttles and the factories and engineers and scientists and astronauts and workers needed to build them.  One of our cells is more sophisticated and complex and busier with more operations than the largest factory in the world.  Multiply that by 100 trillion and add in the "hitch-hikers" that help that human live out his life and imagine the trillions upon trillions of operations happening in trillions and trillions of cells all involved in keeping you alive for even one minute and then think seriously about the idea that some bolt of lightning striking a mud puddle could have possibly led to the creation of YOU???!!!   Are you kidding me?  You  really believe this?

Philosophy tells us that a God is not only likely but necessary.  So does science.  Darwinists must shrug aside the logical arguments from philosophy and science to believe in statistically impossible chance occurrences multiplied by a number too big to comprehend in order to produce the so-called building blocks of life that cannot exist in nature anyway and in a Universe and a Solar System and an Earth all fine-tuned to allow for life to exist.   We may be a tiny blue dot in a massive Universe, but this blue dot is very precisely designed to exist and sustain life for a few thousand years.   

Existence is not only imperfect but it is becoming less organized and energized and farther away from perfection with every second that passes.   That a perfect and eternal God created a Universe that began as "good" but included human beings with the gift of making choices is perfectly logical and sensible.   It certainly explains everything we observe.   That mankind decided to disobey God and, thus, perfection was destroyed and imperfection began to take over is also logically defensible.   I cannot tell you what the Universe would be like if mankind had chosen to obey God and remain innocent, incapable of discerning right and wrong.  But I can tell you that God has implemented a plan to judge all actions and inactions and right all wrongs at the end of this temporal existence.  God is not simply creative and eternal, He is also just and good and certainly great.  He transcends existence and is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.   Time is no more an obstacle to God than a tiny fleck of dust is to a speeding freight train...less so, for one speck of dust would have a minute effect on a train but existence is simply the creation of God and He has full control over it.

Darwinism is no more scientific or explanatory than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.   Even the pagan Greeks recognized the ideal of a God rather than gods.   They were reaching out into the darkness with blind eyes and uncertain hands for the Truth that is contained in the Word of God and is proclaimed by the very majesty and beauty of creation itself, as flawed and devolved as it is now.   To be far from city lights on a camping trip and to look up at the night sky is to fill the soul with wonder.   To investigate the atom and find that the micro level of subatomic particles and the quirks of quarks should also fill the soul with wonder.  God has made a Universe which we can manipulate and touch and see and smell and hear and yet things that seem invisible have substance and substances consist primarily of empty space.  That solid apple you are about to bite into is actually mostly nothing but, on the other hand, there is apparently a "fabric" of sorts upon which the masterpiece of the Universe has been painted, so to speak.

I would think that both a microbiologist and a cosmologist would tend to find faith in God after years of study in their fields of endeavor.   How do you peer intently into the works of God and not see Him there?   I can certainly understand why the great scientists of the past, the founders of chemistry and physics and electrical theory and biology and genetics and astronomy were believers in a God-created world!

So you reject God because you do not wish to be responsible to Him for your life?  I am quite sorry to tell you that your attitude will not comprise a reason nor is it an excuse.   The absolutely obvious conclusion is that the Universe is created and therefore has a Creator.  He made you, He owns you and He has the right to call the shots.   God is Justice personified but He is also Mercy.   He prefers to be merciful rather than to impose judgment on you.   So Jesus Christ came to Earth to live a perfect life and suffer a cursed death, taking the unimaginable burden of all sins upon Himself and enduring separation from the Godhead for your sake, so He could stand in your place in the Court of God and pay the price of your sins with His offering of blood, shed on the cross and accepted by the Father as full payment for sin.

God is not a concept or an unfeeling force.  He is personal and therefore He created you and me as persons.   God wants to know you as a person.   He wants to share an eternal life of wonders and majesty beyond our ken with you after you leave this life and He wants to be part of your life in this temporal lifetime as well.   He wants to give you peace and strength for this life beyond what you received at birth.   Every single one of you is on God's heart and He wants to open paradise to you without requiring you to DO anything.  

In this world of fake Christians and lukewarm faith, full of TV charlatans and blab-it, grab-it preachers trying to put an emphasis on life on Earth under the Sun, so many people only see the users and hypocrites and fakes and completely miss God and the Christians who really mean what they say and do.  For every rich pastor of a giant church somewhere about to buy another BMW or for every pew-filler who cheats on his wife and abuses his kids, there are very likely ten missionaries and Sunday School teachers and other ordinary Christians just loving and praying for others and doing a little here and there to be helpful to the fellow man and to support ministries that bring people to God and help them live an abundant life.

The abundant life is not one of riches and luxury.  If you hear a pastor telling you that if you give your money to God then God will make you rich, then that pastor is primarily seeking to make HIMSELF rich!  God does want His people to be cheerful givers and give to the church and to others.   But God isn't aiming for your wallet, He wants your heart.  Not your bank account or your retirement fund.  Your heart.   If He can have your heart, you will give as you wish and live as you wish within the context of the teachings of the Bible because He promises to give you the desires of your heart.   I have learned this wisdom - God is not a waiter who wishes to fulfill your order off of the menu of life, He is the Changer of hearts so your heart and His plan for your life will coincide.

The God I know is Love.   He will absolutely forgive every sin you have committed or will commit.  He will absolutely fill your heart with peace and your soul with strength.   Once you know Him your life on Earth will not suddenly get easier.   But you will discover that you were once alone and now you will never be alone again.  A quadrillion cells and microscopic companions is just One God short of exactly right.  



5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ian Juby's entertaining and all, but man does he slide some logic distortions past his viewers. Works for the choir, I guess.

Anonymous said...

"So you reject God because you do not wish to be responsible to Him for your life?

Believe it or not, there are other reasons for rejecting God. For some reason, this is one that Christian evangelist like to keep going on about, despite the complete lack of evidence for such a claim. If it were true, then atheists would lead a life of carefree debauchery while Christians would not commit crimes or cheat on their wives or whatever. Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, atheists are no less responsible in their life choices than Christians.

And yet evangelists will continue to spread this lie.

radar said...

Pretty obvious that Atheists and Islamists have been the ones doing mass murdering and blowing up innocents.

Atheists - Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao put together probably murdered 100 million people between them and started wars that caused millions more to die.

Islamists - Middle East conflicts have resulted in plenty of casualties in direct war, meanwhile the Islamic terror groups like Al Qaueda slaughter thousands more. Palestinians lob bombs into Israel on a regular basis. Here in the USA we have Islamic terrorists killing people as well. Boston was the last such example.

There are no Christian terrorist groups, there are no Christian dictatorships and no Christian tyrant is slaughtering political enemies and turning his nation into a giant jail like North Korea.

So, no, Christians actually make news when they do such things because it is not expected. No, Ian Juby did not distort logic and you did not specify because you cannot.

Anonymous said...

Wow, thanks for changing the subject. We'll count that as a concession I suppose.

radar said...

Concession? Changing the subject? Are you not familiar with the English language?

Atheists are obviously far less responsible with their choices as a group. I have given several examples of this so no concession was given at all. IF an Atheist lives by the Christian moral code, fine, lots of them do it. But they are adhering to the morality of the Christian.

Christians are far more likely to follow the code because that morality is part of their worldview. An Atheist may follow all or part of it but may also ignore it entirely.

The Huxleys made it quite clear when Darwin's first book began to circulate, proclaiming that Darwinism gave them an excuse to break away from the standard sexual mores of the time.

Now that American children have been taught Darwinism since at least the early 20th Century, they grew up to ban prayer in public schools and to make it legal to murder babies in (or partly out or even completely out of) the womb. Our most vulnerable citizens are brutally murdered by the millions and THAT is a direct result of people believing in both Darwinism and Atheism.

A Christian society was moral and responsible. Christians had spearheaded the movement to end slavery both in England and in the USA. Christians were at the forefront of ending legalized racial segregation and Jim Crow laws. In fact it was Republicans who pushed for the laws that ended Jim Crow.

Somehow although Democrats were the ones who invented the Jim Crow laws and Democrat Woodrow Wilson segregated the military, somehow even though Martin Luther King, JR was both a Christian and a Republican, the Democrats are now seen as the party of the minorities?

Democrats are aligned with anti-Christian ACLU and are the defenders of baby murdering and are doing their best to strip the Bill of Rights of its powers. You find a LOT more Atheists in the Democratic camp.

As you see, I make no concessions nor do I give your statement one bit of acceptance or agreement. Sure, any one particular Atheist might be a pretty moral person. But on average Atheists are far less moral and it is Atheists who have produced the murderous tyrants of recent years and pushed for murderous changes to our society. Once called Eugenics, now called Planned Parenthood, still out to kill off the babies of the poor and minority mothers. Most Planned Parenthood offices are close to the poorer areas or the areas with more minorities in urban settings. This is not an accident!