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
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."
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!
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.
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.