Summary overview: Creation versus Evolution
This is just an overview post, a call to reason and it is truly me wondering if a genuine inquiring mind will join the conversation who has anything of interest to bring to the table. Will anyone have a conjecture about information that does not include intent and design? If not, where does that leave Darwinists?
I do know I have a few commenters who already agree with me on almost every point, like Hawkeye and Highboy and Angel. They occasionally stop in and chime in on my behalf or perhaps on the behalf of creation science. But most readers never say a thing so I am sure many come in here, read my posts, read at least a few comments and move along.
Allow me to help the readers by pointing out some facts I have laid out during my time blogging about the origination and propagation of life. These are statements I have made and supported over the time I have posted that Darwinist commenters cannot falsify. Speciation is not evolution. Extinction is not evolution. Genetic material can be passed between some organisms but it does not increase in information but only remains stable or suffers a decrease.
All scientists have a worldview. Creation scientists allow for the possibility of the supernatural in the form of a Creator God. Naturalistic materialists do not allow for that possibility no matter where the evidence leads. Intelligent Design scientists are agnostic towards God and only consider the evidence that can be investigated and make cases for the most likely scenarios.
No Darwinist commenter has a reasonable explanation for where the Universe came from.
No Darwinist commenter has a reasonable explanation for how life was formed.
THOSE TWO ARE SLAM DUNKS. Honest Darwinists will admit to this and then say they are simply concentrating on how life evolved from the first cell. Now that is rather presumptive of them because they are assuming that all things evolved from one cell. That this is a statistical impossibility does not seem to bother them.
Uniformitarianism has been entirely debunked. The sedimentary rock layers are all catastrophic in nature. Darwinists like to claim that these layers show a steady progression of life from simple to complex. All the cross-bedding and inter-bedding and out of order rock layers and megabreccias and folds and etc. say otherwise. The rock layers were formed almost entirely as a result of the Noahic Flood and the unstable ice age dominated period post-flood. Vast canyons were formed in massive post-flood dike breaks in most cases.
Furthermore, population studies of the human population give us a beginning population of somewhere around 4000 years ago. By some sort of catastrophe (and the Noahic Flood fits the bill) man began populating the world fairly recently.
All dating methods thought up by Darwinists and Naturalists ignore the idea of the Flood and all of them have major flaws and questions. One will find this out if one studies the evidence presented by both sides (all three sides, depending on how you look at it). For every method that presents old ages there is another method that shows a very young earth. Creationists have been very successful finding dating methods that are not likely skewed by a Flood event and those methods give us young ages.
We have found far too many living fossils to believe that the rock layers show slow evolution of animals and plants. Many animals and plants only appear in rock presumed millions of years old and then suddenly we find them alive? This helps falsify the macroevolution hypothesis. The rock record cannot be a record of extinctions over millions of years if lots of animals that supposedly disappeared and evolved into something else are found to still exist, as is the case.
We have found too many footprints and perfectly preserved specimens of various organisms to support any other conclusion than catastrophism. Catastrophic flood activity better explains the rock layers and fossils. It is in fact the only logical explanation. It is amazing that there are so many fossils, because normally anything that dies gets completely recycled and no record gets left behind.
During the last few months I have build a case that the organism is a highly complex system that is designed with hardware and software that is inexplicable by any other reason. Now that we know that the organism is designed to have variety within kind and yet preserve the organism kind, then the tenets of Darwinism are primarily falsified.
Natural selection is the process built in to organisms to help them adapt to surroundings.
Mutations are often deadly but we have found that cells are predisposed to allow mutations to occur.
Rapid speciation is one result of the very adaptable replication abilities of the DNA/RNA Cell system of reproduction.
No new information is ever found to enter into the organism. Some organisms will exchange information. Some information gets lost. Geneticists know this to be true. This is very frustrating to Darwinists because information comes from an intelligent source and we never see it come from anything else. Genetic Algorithms are of no help here, since they are programs written by an intelligent designer.
Careful study of organisms show us that they are designed to vary within kind and preserve the kind. We also see multiple kinds of organisms that all fit into a niche in the "circle of life" so that other kinds of organisms can take the place of an organism that fails and becomes extinct,
Finally, organisms have never been shown to gain information or convert into another kind of animal.
Now the Darwinists will give you all sorts of canned explanations about macroevolution that cannot be proven and are never observed. But I invite you to look under the hood and when they say macroevolution you will see microevolution instead. Speciation, which is a part of the design of organisms, can happen very rapidly and helps explain why we see some kinds of organisms that have not seemed to change and others that have changed greatly and some that have gone extinct. But you do not see one organism changing into another kind of organism.
No transitional forms. No partly developed eyes, or any other system. All systems are complete and all organisms are whole organisms. All kinds remain within the barriers of their programmed information.
Look, no one in their right mind would happen upon a laptop running Windows Vista and think that it just fell there, that a bunch of junk and rocks and wires rolled downhill and became a laptop. Neither can anyone with any sense believe that the reproductive system described in that previous article in which the cell commands much of the replication process and the DNA RNA strings have more functionality than previously understood should expect such a complex and intricate system to have just happened. Scientists still have not figured out how it all works and the more they learn the more complex it becomes.
So when commenters get shrill and write in all caps and repeat the same old same old over and over again, remember that I invited them to answer a couple of simple questions and they could not answer them. Especially concentrate on what they say about information. They have no idea where the vast amount of information that is input into the cell came from. I know they know that this is a huge insurmountable problem for them so they go into double talk and they will try to take me down rabbit trails away from the issue and on and on and on.
So let me know, will you, if any of them ever come up with a solution to the problem of information? Otherwise, a lot of what they say you can just toss it away. I am going to repeat a comment made that I copied from that article that just made so much sense that it sums the whole problem up for Darwinists:
"Ray N., Australia, 17 March 2010
Thanks, Ray. There you have it. The cell really is too complex to have a naturalistic explanation. The ruling Darwinist paradigm is not going to last much longer because it is built on bad hypotheses and propped up by the sheer numbers of the propagandized. They may have a nice large vocabulary that is involved with a very involved hypothesis that does not hold up to close scrutiny, so do not be put off by the jargon. Look at the evidence with an Aristotle mind set and Occam's Razor in your pocket. You will see unsubstantiated assumptions propped up with twisted logic and fairy tales. You will be prompted to reconsider everything you were told in all your science classes that had to do with Origins.
Or you will fall into lockstep with the propagandizing ideologues and the propagandized masses that follow blindly along behind. This is a free country (for now anyway) and it will be your choice.
As science continues to advance the corner in which Darwinists are trapped will get continually smaller and finally become a loony zone, where only flat earthers and the wackiest of cults remain. I think I would like to get off the bus before it goes over the cliff, if I were you?
I do know I have a few commenters who already agree with me on almost every point, like Hawkeye and Highboy and Angel. They occasionally stop in and chime in on my behalf or perhaps on the behalf of creation science. But most readers never say a thing so I am sure many come in here, read my posts, read at least a few comments and move along.
Allow me to help the readers by pointing out some facts I have laid out during my time blogging about the origination and propagation of life. These are statements I have made and supported over the time I have posted that Darwinist commenters cannot falsify. Speciation is not evolution. Extinction is not evolution. Genetic material can be passed between some organisms but it does not increase in information but only remains stable or suffers a decrease.
All scientists have a worldview. Creation scientists allow for the possibility of the supernatural in the form of a Creator God. Naturalistic materialists do not allow for that possibility no matter where the evidence leads. Intelligent Design scientists are agnostic towards God and only consider the evidence that can be investigated and make cases for the most likely scenarios.
No Darwinist commenter has a reasonable explanation for where the Universe came from.
No Darwinist commenter has a reasonable explanation for how life was formed.
THOSE TWO ARE SLAM DUNKS. Honest Darwinists will admit to this and then say they are simply concentrating on how life evolved from the first cell. Now that is rather presumptive of them because they are assuming that all things evolved from one cell. That this is a statistical impossibility does not seem to bother them.
Uniformitarianism has been entirely debunked. The sedimentary rock layers are all catastrophic in nature. Darwinists like to claim that these layers show a steady progression of life from simple to complex. All the cross-bedding and inter-bedding and out of order rock layers and megabreccias and folds and etc. say otherwise. The rock layers were formed almost entirely as a result of the Noahic Flood and the unstable ice age dominated period post-flood. Vast canyons were formed in massive post-flood dike breaks in most cases.
Furthermore, population studies of the human population give us a beginning population of somewhere around 4000 years ago. By some sort of catastrophe (and the Noahic Flood fits the bill) man began populating the world fairly recently.
All dating methods thought up by Darwinists and Naturalists ignore the idea of the Flood and all of them have major flaws and questions. One will find this out if one studies the evidence presented by both sides (all three sides, depending on how you look at it). For every method that presents old ages there is another method that shows a very young earth. Creationists have been very successful finding dating methods that are not likely skewed by a Flood event and those methods give us young ages.
We have found far too many living fossils to believe that the rock layers show slow evolution of animals and plants. Many animals and plants only appear in rock presumed millions of years old and then suddenly we find them alive? This helps falsify the macroevolution hypothesis. The rock record cannot be a record of extinctions over millions of years if lots of animals that supposedly disappeared and evolved into something else are found to still exist, as is the case.
We have found too many footprints and perfectly preserved specimens of various organisms to support any other conclusion than catastrophism. Catastrophic flood activity better explains the rock layers and fossils. It is in fact the only logical explanation. It is amazing that there are so many fossils, because normally anything that dies gets completely recycled and no record gets left behind.
During the last few months I have build a case that the organism is a highly complex system that is designed with hardware and software that is inexplicable by any other reason. Now that we know that the organism is designed to have variety within kind and yet preserve the organism kind, then the tenets of Darwinism are primarily falsified.
Natural selection is the process built in to organisms to help them adapt to surroundings.
Mutations are often deadly but we have found that cells are predisposed to allow mutations to occur.
Rapid speciation is one result of the very adaptable replication abilities of the DNA/RNA Cell system of reproduction.
No new information is ever found to enter into the organism. Some organisms will exchange information. Some information gets lost. Geneticists know this to be true. This is very frustrating to Darwinists because information comes from an intelligent source and we never see it come from anything else. Genetic Algorithms are of no help here, since they are programs written by an intelligent designer.
Careful study of organisms show us that they are designed to vary within kind and preserve the kind. We also see multiple kinds of organisms that all fit into a niche in the "circle of life" so that other kinds of organisms can take the place of an organism that fails and becomes extinct,
Finally, organisms have never been shown to gain information or convert into another kind of animal.
Now the Darwinists will give you all sorts of canned explanations about macroevolution that cannot be proven and are never observed. But I invite you to look under the hood and when they say macroevolution you will see microevolution instead. Speciation, which is a part of the design of organisms, can happen very rapidly and helps explain why we see some kinds of organisms that have not seemed to change and others that have changed greatly and some that have gone extinct. But you do not see one organism changing into another kind of organism.
No transitional forms. No partly developed eyes, or any other system. All systems are complete and all organisms are whole organisms. All kinds remain within the barriers of their programmed information.
Look, no one in their right mind would happen upon a laptop running Windows Vista and think that it just fell there, that a bunch of junk and rocks and wires rolled downhill and became a laptop. Neither can anyone with any sense believe that the reproductive system described in that previous article in which the cell commands much of the replication process and the DNA RNA strings have more functionality than previously understood should expect such a complex and intricate system to have just happened. Scientists still have not figured out how it all works and the more they learn the more complex it becomes.
So when commenters get shrill and write in all caps and repeat the same old same old over and over again, remember that I invited them to answer a couple of simple questions and they could not answer them. Especially concentrate on what they say about information. They have no idea where the vast amount of information that is input into the cell came from. I know they know that this is a huge insurmountable problem for them so they go into double talk and they will try to take me down rabbit trails away from the issue and on and on and on.
So let me know, will you, if any of them ever come up with a solution to the problem of information? Otherwise, a lot of what they say you can just toss it away. I am going to repeat a comment made that I copied from that article that just made so much sense that it sums the whole problem up for Darwinists:
"Ray N., Australia, 17 March 2010
All this talk about information and coding, it’s interesting people don’t see the bigger picture. As a software engineer, everything I work on consists of 2 separate, yet intertwined systems: hardware and software (the seen and unseen). You can put a hard disk drive under a microscope but you’ll not see the software in it. The only way to know there’s software in it is putting the HD in a PC and turning on the power and watch the behavior of the hardware. And most software (programs) are unique to the existing hardware; you can’t just install Windows 7 in a Mac laptop and assume it’ll just work. You can put the cell under a microscope and look at the DNA, protein, amino acid, etc. but you won’t see the software, and that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Figure 2(a) has nice pretty pictures of how a process works. I see that a lot in design specs for power plants, water treatment plants, etc, but turning them into actual software code is not easy. It’s a multibillion dollar industry these days. I don’t believe in evolution because it’s impossible to have a cell suddenly exist with the right hardware plus the right operating software installed. Often, when scientists try to calculate the probability of life existing all of a sudden only consider the probability of hardware coming together, but nothing about software. We now live in an age where everyday electronic devices consist of hardware and software, with the hardware not working properly if there’s a problem with the software."
Thanks, Ray. There you have it. The cell really is too complex to have a naturalistic explanation. The ruling Darwinist paradigm is not going to last much longer because it is built on bad hypotheses and propped up by the sheer numbers of the propagandized. They may have a nice large vocabulary that is involved with a very involved hypothesis that does not hold up to close scrutiny, so do not be put off by the jargon. Look at the evidence with an Aristotle mind set and Occam's Razor in your pocket. You will see unsubstantiated assumptions propped up with twisted logic and fairy tales. You will be prompted to reconsider everything you were told in all your science classes that had to do with Origins.
Or you will fall into lockstep with the propagandizing ideologues and the propagandized masses that follow blindly along behind. This is a free country (for now anyway) and it will be your choice.
As science continues to advance the corner in which Darwinists are trapped will get continually smaller and finally become a loony zone, where only flat earthers and the wackiest of cults remain. I think I would like to get off the bus before it goes over the cliff, if I were you?