Search This Blog

Sunday, May 05, 2013

Desperation Drives Darwinists to Barf Out Comments. They have a horseless carriage in a world of modern automobiles, so of course they are at a disadvantage.

So the new Darwinist commenter ploy is to make several comments in a few minutes so the comments thread is flooded with verbiage and supposed "answers" to my challenge in the last post.   But no commenter could answer WHERE DID EVERYTHING COME FROM?????

I would recommend you, the reader, might read the last post and the first maybe 20 comments and then move on because the Darwinist comments are not serious nor do they contain evidence.  They simply call me names and claim I am depending on logical fallacies and the reason they do this is because they CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!!!!

I reminded the Darwinists that Darwinism is simply Pantheism with a veneer of science applied.  But it is only a veneer.   Darwinism is preposterous in the extreme.   I did not expect them to be able to answer the questions associated with the big question number one.   Is that your plan, to just blather away to clog up the blog rather than actually engage in dialogue?   It is time to man up and take on the questions straight up.

Ian Juby reprised concerning the illogical assertions of Darwinists about astronomy/cosmology.  The Psarris model eventually takes on the Big Bang and, when it goes into detail, I will alert the readers.

If you could have answered, you would simply have answered.   Within the myriad comments there were no answers to explain the uncaused multitudes of miracles that a Big Bang would have required.   One or two Darwinist commenters did the Troll thing and spewed out lots of nothing and then asked ME for evidence when my posts have presented the evidence.  I was asking YOU for evidence for:

A singularity.  Where did it come from?
An explosion.  How was it powered?
Control of explosion?  Who or what controlled it?

Creation of heavier elements and stars and galaxies and planets and moons, etc.  The Nebular Hypothesis does not work.   How does your random accident account for all the well designed and integrated laws of science and the placement of the Sun, Moon and Earth in the Solar System in a place ideal for exploring and even being able to identify anything beyond our own galaxy?  Hmmmm?   You have less than 1 chance in^10 to the 40,000th to simply begin this Earth filling with life with complete random events.   That is with us spotting you all the electrons in the Universe and 15 billion years to try.  There are only 10^88th electrons in the Universe, you know this, right?

Meanwhile you have 100 trillion cells, fantastically designed and more complex than auto factories in your body.  You have ten biological hitch-hikers living in and on you as well for each of those cells, albeit not assigned ten to a cell but rather found in the digestive tract first and foremost but all over in smaller numbers.

"THE INCREDIBLE COMPLEXITY OF MAN

All living things are extremely complex, even the tiniest single-celled animals and bacteria. However, none surpasses the overall complexity of the human being. Not only is each person constructed of trillions of molecules and cells, but the human brain alone is filled with billions of cells forming trillions of trillions of connections. The design of the human brain is truly awesome and beyond our understanding. Every cubic inch of the human brain contains at least 100 million nerve cells interconnected by 10 thousand miles of fibers.

It has been said that man's 3 pound brain is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the entire universe! Far more complicated than any computer, the human brain is capable of storing and creatively manipulating seemingly infinite amounts of information. Its capabilities and potential stagger the imagination. The more we use it, the better it becomes." - Creation Research Library

One commenter said (not kidding) -"We know that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply without question today, from our current perspective..."

Yes, which is exactly why the Big Bang cannot fit into a naturalistic hypothesis as that would break the 1st Law of Thermodynamics!

"Yet the LOT also lead us to deduce that at some point in the past, they either somehow didn't apply or they applied differently. I think we can agree on that up to that point."

Are you serious?   The LOT only lead us to deduce that there is nothing in the natural world able to create or destroy.   So you are bonkers there.   There is no evidence to indicate ".. they either somehow didn't apply or they applied differently..."

We cannot possibly agree on that point at all.   You are claiming that the LOT tells us that it used to be different and created and destroyed things, but it went to rehab and hasn't destroyed or created anything in 7,000 years!?   Those Scientific Laws Anonymous meetings really helped it straighten up and fly right!  Uh, NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  You argument is like Wile E; Coyote standing on air after chasing the Roadrunner and going past the edge of the cliff.  It is going straight down and crashing.  Another one bits the dust!

The LOT do not change for Darwinist whims.  They were established after years of stringent testing and they have remained inviolate.  So that is real science.
Therefore my charge that Darwinists have nothing but a faith position on the creation of the Universe has proved to be true.  The Laws of Thermodynamics have never been demonstrated to be broken and until such time as such things are observed, the entire Darwinist Big Bang myth is unsupported.   Darwin gets an "F" for the first question.  Bad start, guys...



Da Vinci designed a spring-powered car and it will actually work.   Not efficient, but it works.

Da Vinci often deliberately input one intentional screw-up in his designs, so if they were stolen and copied they would not work and the thief would be identified in the process.  He did this with his tank, for instance, and the guys who were investigating this on the show Doing DaVinci did indeed identify the gotcha and actually made a working, moving tank from the Da Vinci designs.



You can find Doing DaVinci on television if you have the right channels.  Fun to watch!

I had a picture of a car made in 1398, spring-driven but of course not efficient at all.  A toy for royalty.   Cannot seem to find it at the moment.   No matter.   The first working steam-powered car was made in the 18th Century but the first internal combustion engine used to power a car was a 19th Century invention and by more than one inventor.  Numerous men (Daimler, Benz, Otto, Duryea, Ford, Olds, and many others) came up with horseless carriages.   Literally, for at first they would take a horse carriage and put an engine on it, devise a steering mechanism and they would go down the road noisily and slowly at first.



1893 Duryea

credit


The 1902 Oldsmobile pictured above with the classic Curved Dash.  The site is a good source of information on early cars.  The Olds would be the first true production car in the USA.   But they were still horseless carriages at this time.    

Steam and electric powered cars were made and eventually the Stanley Steamer was the fastest car in the world in 1906, but frankly the bad press about steam engines (that they were likely to explode, primarily) was a factor in the eventual end of the steam-powered car.  



The first car I got to "drive" was Old Charley, our 1922 Chevrolet Touring Car that my father had rebuilt with genuine parts where needed but in fact it was in good shape when he found it in a garage in a Southern Indiana garage.   I sat on his lap at age five or six and would help turn the steering wheel.  No power steering.   Dad had to crank it to start it.  I have some black and white pictures but this is exactly what he looked like.   We would take Charley apart in the winter and polish all the brass and chrome, sand and refinish the wooden spoked wheels, drain fluids to replace them in the spring and paint anything that was marred.   In the 20's the automobile industry began to add windows, electric starters and soon the automobile was quite comfortable transportation, even adding heaters and a radio and other amenities and features we take for granted now.

But back to the point.  The 19th Century horseless carriage was a start, but the automobile would become far more sophisticated as man devised better engines and steering, transmission  starting and so many other improvements were made.   The modern car does not resemble the old horseless carriages.



The 2013 SRT Viper has 640 horsepower and a top speed of 206 MPH.  But then the 2013 Ford Shelby GT500 has similar specs at half the price.


So it appears that mankind has advanced tremendously in the transition from horseless carriage to automobile.

Why has Darwinism persisted?   It is the horseless carriage of science.  When Darwin gave us the latest version of Pantheism, no one knew much about the cell and thought it was made of "protoplasm."  The Universe was either created by God (majority opinion at the time) or as some claimed,  eternal.   The idea of genetics had not actually become any kind of science at all.   Knowledge about the cell and organisms was close to nothing at all.  

Now we know that organisms are spectacularly designed with an information-rich coding system more sophisticated than anything man can devise.  We study organisms to learn from them!  Many new inventions are simply taking the designs of organisms and producing them for human use.   Our technology has advanced dramatically since the 19th Century.  We went from oil lamps to electric lighting, from a pot or an outhouse to indoor toilets with showers and bathtubs and sinks.   We went from wind-driven ships and horses as the fastest modes of transportation to remarkably fast boats and submarines, trains and jets that go faster than sound and of course we have learned to make spacecraft that took us to the Moon and allowed us to establish a space station circling the planet...along with numerous satellites.   We have various space vehicles which have investigated both the planets and the moons of the Solar System but also deeper into space.

So why does the horseless carriage of Darwinism persist?   The lies of Lyell are disproven, there is no geological column representing long ages, but rather catastrophic sedimentary layers that support the Noahic Flood instead.  Also, we find that organisms vary by the selection of pre-existing genetic information contained within the DNA of the cell and not by mutations somehow building new kinds of organisms.   This was Darwin's contention but we have not observed this happening.  So why do we drive Mustangs on the highway but pretend that biology rides in a horseless carriage?   

Anyway, just wait for the NEXT question.   I can already hear the lies and blather that is to come when I point out another area in which Darwinism is based on faith rather than evidence, but hey, that is not my fault!  I am simply presenting the evidence and comparing Darwinism to Creationism and poor old Darwinism cannot help being an outdated horseless carriage.   It is not Darwin's fault, it is the fault of the Dawkins-types who are true believers in the mythology of Pantheistic Darwinism now, when they really should know better.

Catch up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



9 comments:

Anonymous said...

"So the new Darwinist commenter ploy is to make several comments in a few minutes so the comments thread is flooded with verbiage and supposed "answers" to my challenge in the last post."

Responding to your prolific text one point at a time is hardly a "ploy". You didn't do so well trying to answer the eyewitness question and almost immediately had to abandon your own dictum of requiring evidence in an argument.

So that's one down. I doubt you'll do much better addressing the many other open questions that you're running away from.

radar said...

I asked simple questions you cannot answer. Quit pretending that you have answered anything.

I will make it easy for you. If the Laws of Thermodynamics are true (and they have never been observed to be broken) then what miracle do you resort to in order to get the famous singularity created. Who or what created it?

See, I have evidence. The Bible is an account of creation. A Supernatural Creator created the Universe. This is historical evidence.

This is logical. We see that only entities with a mind can "create" things. Since we are limited by the LOT, our creations are actually making changes to the materials available to us. If there is a work of art, someone made it. If there is a book, someone wrote it. If there is a machine, someone designed and built it.

We are contained within the Universe. But with our minds we can imagine outside of our time/apace continuum. Therefore you can invent a singularity with your mind. Heck, invent a pink pastel unicorn if you like. But quit calling it science.

Where did the singularity come from? You say you can answer questions? Answer.

radar said...

I will be surprised if the evasions do not immediately begin....

radar said...

But there is silence instead. This is one of several points in the very lame concept of Big Bang-ology that cannot be explained by a naturalist without leaving naturalism behind and appealing to a miracle without a miracle-maker.

God, historically understood to exist and believed by most of the great scientists of all time, He is Supernatural. The Supernatural can create the natural.

Anonymous said...

The answer to your question of the origin of the singularity is: We don’t know. We can speculate (and that is what the God hypothesis is), but we do not know. What we do know, however, is what leads us to the Big Bang theory, not a deity *poof*ing the world into existence 6,000 years ago.

Science proceeds from the observable and draws conclusions. But there are limits to what we can observe and deduce. We can deduce that there was such a thing as a Big Bang, and that is in line with all our observations. We can speculate beyond that, but it would be mere speculation. You’re welcome to speculate that your God was what caused the Big Bang, and there would be no evidence against (or for) that. And you won’t find anyone disagreeing with you, myself included.

When you claim that scientists say the singularity either is nothing or came from nothing, or that scientists claim the singularity *poof*ed into existence, you’re being dishonest, misleading, or ill-informed. The answer is that science has no answer for that at this point. It may not satisfy you, but it is as far as science has come at this point.

Incidentally, all viewpoints, that of mainstream science and of creationism, agree that at some point in the distant past, the LOT either did not exist or acted differently. Creationism proposes the speculative idea of a supernatural being, while science reaches a limit of what can be deduced from our current perspective. I don’t see what’s so controversial about that. Science has limits. Imagination doesn’t, so man is free to make up mythologies to fill in the blanks.

radar said...

The answer to your question of the origin of the singularity is: We don’t know. We can speculate (and that is what the God hypothesis is), but we do not know. What we do know, however, is what leads us to the Big Bang theory, not a deity *poof*ing the world into existence 6,000 years ago.

Grade = F! The Created by God concept was accepted science and there was NO observable evidence of a singularity. By admitting that you do not know you are admitting that the entire Big Bang hypothesis is unscientific. You do not have any explanation or evidence for a singularity and the evidence for a BB is nonexistent.

Science proceeds from the observable and draws conclusions.

That is why a Universe created by God was the standard belief and should still be the standard belief. We observe the LOT are in place, so nature could not create itself. We observe creative minds creating things. We have the historical record of the Supernatural Mind of God being the Creator. We have evidence, you have anti-science wishful thinking. With no evidence that the LOT can be broken, the BB NEVER should have even been proposed and, when it was, should have been laughed out of the place.

But there are limits to what we can observe and deduce. We can deduce that there was such a thing as a Big Bang, and that is in line with all our observations.

NOT. So you may be so propagandized you cannot see. But this is either a lie or you are among the hypnotized by Darwinism. The BB is NOT in line with observations, in fact it is ridiculously off in myriad ways. It is not just the 96% missing energy and matter, it is the unexplained beginning of it and the evidence of the stars themselves. The CBR is wrong, the galaxies are wrong, in face most everything in space says no Big Bang.


We can speculate beyond that, but it would be mere speculation. You’re welcome to speculate that your God was what caused the Big Bang, and there would be no evidence against (or for) that. And you won’t find anyone disagreeing with you, myself included.

No, the BB is all speculation and it breaks scientific laws so I will not blame God for an imaginary event.

When you claim that scientists say the singularity either is nothing or came from nothing, or that scientists claim the singularity *poof*ed into existence, you’re being dishonest, misleading, or ill-informed. The answer is that science has no answer for that at this point. It may not satisfy you, but it is as far as science has come at this point.

Oh, it satisfies me. It satisfies me to see you admit to the fact that the BB has no evidence to support it. You cannot even admit it to yourself but you do it when you admit that you do not know. If you do not know and have no evidence for it then you have no business calling it science. Write a Sci-Fi novel instead.

Incidentally, all viewpoints, that of mainstream science and of creationism, agree that at some point in the distant past, the LOT either did not exist or acted differently. Creationism proposes the speculative idea of a supernatural being, while science reaches a limit of what can be deduced from our current perspective. I don’t see what’s so controversial about that. Science has limits. Imagination doesn’t, so man is free to make up mythologies to fill in the blanks.

Baloney. There is no evidence that the LOT worked differently in the past.

radar said...

So you commenters have no answers but pretend that you do.

You pretend the LOT decided to take a vacation so that a singularity could *poof* into existence. Then another *poof* explodes it and another *poof* controls the explosion and then you have 1 chance in 10^40,000th chance of one organism forming by chance IF an long series of *poof*s created time and all the natural laws and made all the stars and planets and other stellar objects.

*Poof* is not science.

Again, real scientists believed God created everything and they worked with that belief in place. They established the major disciplines of science, the Newtons and Kelvins and Maxwells and Keplers. With historical evidence that fit the observable evidence, creation by God of a material Universe that was running downhill like a wound clock is what they saw and what they believed. The Laws of Thermodynamics work fine in this scenario but they preclude a Big Bang.

The Big Bang is a religion-based unscientific canard.

Notice that science also established that even the simplest microorganisms only came from other microorganisms and the Law of Biogenesis was established. So any claims that any form of abiogenesis research is "science" is baloney.

Searlas said...

I saw your friend Bob attacked on Facebook by a poisonous atheist (claims to be agnostic, but he's not honest). Bob is stupid because he posts videos by "Ian Jubby". The atheist is stupid because he can't do anything other than malign other people.

radar said...

Yes, I am pretty sure Ian wants to remain a "Juby!"

It is alarming how mean some Darwinists can be. They remind me of the cottonmouth snake aka water moccasin. Those snakes will literally chase you in an attempt to bite you and they are quite poisonous. I had three of them slither into the water in a limestone-bed creek and all come swimming at me at once as a boy. I chucked rocks at two of them and scared them off but one made it to me and I was lucky to pin his head down to the creek bed with my "crawdad stick." He then curled his body around me and tried to leverage his way out from the forked stick that had pinned his head down.

I didn't get bit because my cousin came and pounded the snake's head to a pulp and pulled it off of my leg. We watched the headless snake swim away downstream as if still alive. Funny how snakes will "run" for awhile without a head, kind of like a chicken I suppose. If you cut a chicken's head off, it will run around for awhile so you have to grab it by the neck and twirl it around to break it before you begin to prepare it to cook and eat.

Yeah, I spend a lot of time in forests as a kid and young man. Used to be able to spot which mushrooms were safe and pick out the edible greens and berries. Once I got married to a girl who hated camping out that ended.

Darwinists remind me of the cottonmouth snake. Meaner than heck and attack-minded. Evidence should have already pounded their heads off but they swim along anyway. I wonder what it will take to end the mythology that has pervaded society?