Search This Blog

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Everyone believes in the supernatural...As a preface to Question Evolution Day and the QEP? You must question Naturalism!!!

The purpose of this blogpost is to demonstrate to you that EVERYBODY believes in the supernatural when they consider origins.   Hopefully you realize that not one of us is a tabula rasa but we are all looking at the world from a suppositional starting point.  The sum of all the information we receive as we grow up causes us to make assumptions about the nature of the world even before we are capable of making hypothetical abstract constructs in our mind about the nature of being itself and the purpose and meaning of life. 

Three years ago I compiled a set of posts that were a sample of the proofs I had offered the world that information is not material in form or substance, that in fact it is not material at all.  It was call the Ultimate Information Post.

As Darwinists struggled to come up with arguments, I challenged them to give me a natural source for information...and this one was the most common response, to quote that linked source:

"What is a natural source for information?"

"Mutation plus natural selection."

Yes, this is supposed to be an answer.  It is akin to asking a student to provide us with Euclid's first theorem in a Plane Geometry class and having him say, "Obtuse angle."  Will obtuse angles be mentioned in a Geometry class?  Undoubtedly, and you may even argue with me about what the first theorem should be called but in no way does the answer given answer the question.  We would all agree with that.    FYI in my opinion the answer would be, "If two triangles have two sides equal to two sides respectively, and if the angles contained by those sides are also equal, then the triangles will be equal in all respects. 

If we leave the world of Geometry and stroll over to an art class, we could easily disprove this theorem, as we could paint two identical triangles but color one red and one blue.  So the theorem is true in the world of plane geometry but in the actual world in which we live there are ways to make the statement untrue.  So far, so good?  Euclid's first theorem is true in the world of Geometry but not necessarily and completely true in every context.

The following statements about information are true: 

  • Information cannot be quantified perfectly because it is not material in form.
  • Information containers can be quantified but the exact quality and quantity of the information within cannot be.
  • Information within DNA can be associated with specific portions of the DNA string, which enables us to quantify to some extent and identify to some extent the information contained within DNA.  But this is still a matter of identifying the container of information.   
  • No material or natural source for information has been identified.  Information within the genome is pre-existent and it is lost, it is mutated or it is transmitted but it is never created.

We know that information is lost in reproduction, we know it is lost in ring speciation, we know it occurs when a subset of organisms is isolated.   We have also discovered that by mating speciated kinds with each other we can to some extent begin to bring scattered genetic information together.  It would be theoretically possible to bring all dog-kinds together and mate them until we produced an animal that is probably very similar to the original dog-kind.  When dogs of all kinds are abandoned and begin to run in packs and intermingle they have a tendency to lose the characteristics that breeders bred for and they tend towards a homogenous dog-kind such as the wild dog packs of Detroit.   Detroit has large parts that have been abandoned as this blog's pictures nicely illustrate.  Although new members to feral dog packs can be very obviously identifiable breeds, the result of interbreeding has produced a typical feral dog that is turning into a type with similar features, sizes and colorings.  There was a fascinating documentary shown on cable television last year documenting the Detroit feral dog, its habits and appearance and measures man was taking to try to control their population.  Detroit Mayor Dave Bing has denied a Discovery Channel request to do a documentary on these dogs.  I have been unable to locate the original documentary and would appreciate a link if you know what has become of it?

Now we move to information theory.   I will point to links below in which I clearly demonstrate that information has no material form but in order for material beings to transmit information we need tools that are material in form such as media and languages.   Dr. Gitt actually has written a brilliant and challenging book concerning information that I have often referred to or accessed for publication on this blog and frankly doing that all over again is unnecessary.  In The Beginning Was Information is readily available for purchase at Amazon as well as Creation.com and other sources.  His biography page at the aforementioned site and it is quite modest.  Dr. Gitt reached the pinnacle of information science and is among the most respected if not the most respected information expert on the planet.  His detractors are generally those that resent his Christianity and the fact that he does not hesitate to link science and God.  Of course, neither did Newton or Kepler or Lord Kelvin or Bacon or Maxwell or other great scientific minds that have come before him.

Information has been shown to be intelligence transmitted.   It is not material in form or substance.  When someone claims that a definition of information is not correct without a demonstrable way to quantify it, they are playing games of misdirection.   Information cannot be quantified because it is not material!  Make sure you understand this.  By this we understand that information and intellect did not arise by natural means and because of this truth alone the entire worldview of the Darwinist collapses in a heap at his feet.  Naturally (small pun), Darwinists do not wish to allow that to be understood or known, so they demand that information be defined in a quantifiable way.  They will not get their wish.  Shannon's Law deals with information containers, which can be quantified.  But it cannot speak to the content within the containers, which is the actual information itself"

If I took a blank pad of paper and a pencil and weighed them on a scale and then held up the pad for you to read it, you would look at me quizzically. If I asked you what my message was to you, would would say something like, "Nothing?"   Now, if I took the pencil and wrote, "Darwin was wrong!"  You could repeat it back to me and you would understand my message to you.  I could then take pencil and pad and weigh them again and the weight would be the same as it was before I wrote the message.  You see?   By taking the pencil and writing on it, I was able to communicate with you and yet the mass and substance of the means of information transmission were not greater or heavier than they were before I wrote the message.  Going to the Ultimate Information Post you will find all sorts of faulty-to-desperate arguments from Darwinists that all fail to refute the proofs offered.  

Information can only come from intelligence and intelligence, like information, is not material.  In fact life itself has no weight or mass and yet we can surely distinguish between a living and a dead organism.   We have three dogs, a parakeet and well over one hundred fish.  If any of them die I will be able to tell easily and yet at the moment of death the physical composition of the organism will be unchanged for a very short time until the microorganisms both within and without begin to break down the structure of the organism. It will eventually be recycled and become part of the ecosystem as part of the food source for other organisms.

But I have BURIED THE LEAD - homage to the exquisite 1987 movie,  Broadcast News - for this post is supposed to challenge any belief you may hold that is naturalistic aka materialistic.   If you have cherished your belief in only a natural world, you have been living a life based on a lie, for there is no scientist or philosopher or thinker of any stripe who believes in a natural origin for our existence.   You doubt this?

Let's consider the state of the popular and badly flawed hypothesis of the Big Bang.   Often in this blog I have pointed out that the equations that pretend to demonstrate that the Big Bang occurred are missing in the vicinity of 95% of the energy and mass needed to make it an actual equation.   When most of your equation is mythical, it is ridiculous to call it anything like science, it is simply wishful thinking.  Knowing this, and knowing that the purported "Planck Time" is miraculous if true,  many of the Anything But God crowd have resorted to a Quantum Mechanics - based answer which is a grave error of logic.  We will yield the floor briefly to the "The Daily Galaxy."


"The Universe Exists Because of Spontaneous Creation" -Stephen Hawking

Srvr In "The Grand Design," Stephen Hawking and Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow suggest that physics and metaphysics (and religion) are merging. The grand design which we have taken for granted since Newton is more complex than anything we ever dreamed of. Models of the universe are changing radically. Many physicists doublt the reality of a Big Bang. We live in a world in which many physicists have come to believe there are not merely three dimensions plus time, but 10, or possibly 11 -a new world view world that encompasses that includes black holes, supermassive black holes, galaxy-mass black holes, dark matter, dark energy , string theory, M-theory, alternate pasts and alternate futures.


"The universe began with the Big Bang, which simply followed the inevitable law of physics," Hawking writes. “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.The universe didn't need a God to begin; it was quite capable of launching its existence on its own," says reknowned physicist Stephen Hawking Hawking explains in his new book, The Grand Design.

“It is not necessary to invoke God to set the universe going." In his famous 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking did not dismiss the possibility that God may have played some role in creation. But earlier this summer he said in an interview that he does not believe in a "personal" God, reported Great Britain's Telegraph. "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second," he explained. "If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God,' but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Just because Hawking does not prefer a personal God that you can meet does not mean that a personal God is not there nor does is preclude the inevitable meeting between Hawking and God.  Hawking invokes gravity to usher in the Universe and yet gravity has no power without mass and if the Universe is not yet in existence then neither mass nor the laws of nature would exist either.   There is either an "is" or there is an "is not." Not even the concept of nothing could exist.  Before the Universe existed, there was no existence at all.   This is logically obvious. So any form of the assertions of Hawking and Mlodinow that the Universe created itself are incredibly childish. 

Perhaps the final sigh of great-but-foolish mind's failure to find an alternative to God is to offer up a doppelganger in God's place?   Haters of God have done this for centuries...we should not be fooled by the latest attempts to displace God with a magical mystery self-creating Universe and have it labeled "science!"  

If there are all possible Universes in the multiverse scenario, then one of them would need to be made by the Creator God and then that God would have created all that is.  By definition, Universe means all there is that exists anyway, so having multiverses is as ridiculous as having married bachelors.   It is logically impossible.

Darwinists have suggested in various ways that what must have happened was that all the negative subatomic particles and all the positive subatomic particles equal absolutely nothing and some kind of collision or explosion or other unknown event had caused the equilibrium between them to have been disturbed, thus popping our Universe into existence ex nihilo.   Spontaneous Creation of the Universe is what I believe, because God created it instantly when He decided He wanted to create one.   But just as the Spontaneous Generation of life was absolutely disproved by Louis Pasteur to the point that all of science agreed that the Law of Biogensis was, well, a LAW, so any such explanation for the Universe must also eventually bow to the need for a Creator as well.  The Laws of Thermodynamics have not been overturned.  A Universe does not create itself.

To harken back to that blank pad of paper, if at the beginning you had indeed said that there was nothing there, you would have been wrong.   In fact, you had meant there was no information being transmitted from me to you as I had not yet written one word.  But a blank pad of paper certainly is something, it is made primarily of wood pulp and it has tangible weight.  You can see it and feel it and move it about.  Those scientists who claim that Quantum Mechanics has shed any light on the origin of the Universe are certainly saying so from a place of complete darkness logically.  Whereas the "spooky" nature of subatomic particles appear to both violate and yet substantiate Relativity Theory, there is not one scientist who can claim to understand how subatomic particles seem to "know" if they are observed or not nor can they show that the Laws of Thermodynamics are ever broken by them.

I can write this:  1-1 = 0.   Was zero nothing or something?  It is something as you can see, for you can read it as I have typed it.  Zero is in between positive and negative numbers but it is NOT nothing.  That people with very high IQs and rigorous University training this should be obvious but, alas, it is not!

Question " I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." (R. Feynman) If that statement is true, how can we know if QM is true? "

Answer "Whatever our definition of truth could be (Like: "A statement is true if its content corresponds to reality." which, I believe, was Einstein's concept of truth.) before we determine if a statement is true we need to understand it. In the same way, before we determine if a theory is true, it is necessary to understand it. If nobody understands quantum mechanics, as a consequence, no one knows if it is true."- ResearchGate

We live in a world into which we come naked and helpless and we leave it without taking even our own body with us.   The people who hate God because they hate the idea of being responsible for their actions and intentions and even their thoughts have always battled God and attempted to find ways to make their own gods instead of acknowledging the Creator.   The first man and woman disobeyed God,  their first-born son, Cain,  killed their second-born son, Abel because of jealousy and rage against God.   But Adam and Even had another son, Seth, and from that point forward  mankind has fallen into two groups:  Those that have faith in the Creator God and those who do not.   Seth chose to believe in God and Genesis therefore tells us (Genesis 4:25-26) the following:
"And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, “For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.”  And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the Lord."

People know that actual experiments and observations have demonstrated that life does not come from non-life and that nothing is either created or destroyed in the natural world, but there is a relentless path down which the Universe must travel as all energy is being converted into entropy or, if you prefer, everything is getting colder or less orderly.   No matter how you view the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenesis, they are antithetical to a Universe creating itself, life creating itself or frankly that Darwinist evolution ever happens.  

God created the Universe to be a grand stage upon which all of mankind would play their parts, hitting their marks, speaking their lines, acting out their lifetimes and then exit stage left.  Because God is sovereign, it may not be perfectly accurate that we have free will, as He has made us in His image and He knows what kind of person we will be.  Perhaps the better way to say it is that we are free to make choices.   All of us can choose to have faith in God or choose to reject God.  No matter what is true about the Will of God, we know that statement is true because God has told us that it is true.  

II Peter 3:9 - "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
 
The road to stupidity since Darwin proposed his twisted hypothesis and hucksters like Thomas Huxley began promoting it has been paved with bad intentions.   Darwinism is anti-God and anti-good and this is why science has been poisoned with it and many advances in medicine in particular we could have achieved have been lost in the desperate search by so many for that impossible proof of Darwinist evolution.   The search for the Philosopher's Stone actually led to many scientific discoveries along the way.   But the money and energy spent on anti-science is gone forever.   Could we have found a cure for ALS if we were not so intent on proving that God did not create us?  Would we have a cure for cancer of all kinds, would we have learned how to turn trash into energy efficiently had we not been so focused on finding a missing link?  Would we have a better idea of how to fight devolution (mutations do not build, they break) and stave off the proliferation of new allergies, new syndromes and new diseases that are threatening lives?

Everyone has a responsibility to the Creator God.  My responsibility includes telling all who read this blog that God is the Creator and He has made a way for us to be redeemed from our sin by accepting the Son of God, Jesus Christ, as our Savior and Lord.  I pray that you are not deceived but are instead persuaded to abandon folly and trust the way God has made for you to be saved.

Galatians 6:7-8 - "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.  For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life."

1 comment:

radar said...

“Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals. … The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister. We can be proud of her beauty, since we have the same father; but she has no authority over us; we have to admire, but not to imitate.” GK Chesterton