Exposing the shell game of Darwinism. I appeal to you to THINK!
picture credit
One of my goals on this blog is to share the discoveries of scientists from other sites with my readership and to associate it with previously published information in order to inform Christians and non-Christians alike on matters that are of paramount importance. Probably the subject most crucial to this blog is the subject of worldview. In numerous ways I have asserted successfully that worldview usually precedes any consideration of evidences concerning origins. Darwinist commenters have proven this time and time again by stating that only naturalistic causes can be considered when evidences are inspected. This is naturally false and betrays a bias towards naturalism and a prejudice against supernatural causes with no good reasoning to support the viewpoint. No one is qualified to declare that there is no God with any authority.
My premise is that all evidence must be viewed from the point of view that there may or may not be a God. That a Creator God created all things is the prevailing opinion of human history. It was the theme of the majority of the great scientists of the past. It remains the most sensible explanation for existence. Whether Theist or Deist or devoted Christian the scientists pre-Darwin tended to believe that God created and that the study of all things was primarily a means of discerning how the creation of God worked. People believed that a logical explanation for processes could be expected to be found because a Logical Mind had created them.
Now here is where the rubber meets the road: Observation. In recent months I have concentrated on evidence that can be observed and tested and understood today, in the year 2010, without having to make any suppositions but just by applying our finite minds to things that we can pick at and poke right now.
Do you wonder why certain commenters want me to look at ice cores and tree rings? Because there is no way to index either process back more than a few hundred years with great accuracy. A creeper can assert that the number of tree rings on a tree proves that the tree is older than a Noahic Flood would allow for and yet he cannot say with certainty that tree ring formation is constant and can be reliably proven to have worked the same way three thousand years ago. Nor can he assert with confidence how many layers of ice could have been formed in the first few years after a world-wide flood. Nor can he explain why some areas of the ocean have little or no layers of sediment at all, thus making the world appear to be a few decades old. Is it possible that Earth was formed fifty years ago? Of course not!
The reason that commenters want to discuss these things is because they can bring out the "just suppose" stories that provide a long age for a tree or for the ice layers in the Arctic or Greenland. But they cannot possibly prove that their methods are accurate because they cannot index back far enough. The same problem exists with long-age half lifes or the accumulation of chemicals in the ocean. Carbon-14 dating is so unreliable that no one takes it seriously for measuring long ages (supposing these long ages exist) and other dating methods exist that give us widely varying ages. In fact there is no process that has been measured long enough reliably to extrapolate back to a certain starting point in the past, not one that can be proven to be true. Polonium radiohalos and helium atoms in granite and pressurized petroleum and natural gas reservoirs and the presence of DNA and flesh preserved in animals presumed to have passed away millions of years ago just tells us that there will never be a method by which you can prove the age of the Earth.
Transitional forms? Again I say there are none. All animals presented as transitional forms have turned out to be fully formed animals. Usually they are simply a species that is now extinct. Never do we see a half-formed eye or a partially-developed wing system. Never.
The rock records? When reeds can be found thrusting through supposed multiple millions of years of rock that should put the lie to long ages right there. The rock records are a record of catastrophism. The Noahic Flood and its aftermath explain the rocks quite well, including the general order of fossils found and the nature of fosssils found and the order they are found in and the tracks that are left.
These things - tree rings, dating methods, rock records, fossils....they are all from unobservable past events that cannot be observed now. Therefore if you have a good patter and quick moves you can convince people that the pea is under one shell when it is in fact under another...or palmed in your hand. Darwinists can and do build long fairy tales about one tooth found so you can be sure they can really lay down a whopper given a few bones or a tree with a lot of rings. Heck can't David Copperfield make an aircraft carrier disappear?
While I have posted long and hard about rock records and related items, recently I began to concentrate on what we can observe. Life. Microbiologists, cellular biologists, chemists, microengineers, geneticists and etc? They observe life as it is and have discerned the following:
credit
DNA is a design mechanism. It is far more than a blueprint but one could consider it as a very complex set of coding, software if you will. We could think of it as a very precise and sophisticated application that runs on the hardware of the cell. But the cell itself has an operating system that is also drawn from DNA, much like a computer it has hardware and software so while DNA provides the basis for both the operating system but also the applications that run on the cell. But this is not terribly surprising because with four choices rather than the two choices given to computers running on binary code OFF and ON, DNA is built on a ACTG system that allows for many more choices within the tiny physical footprint of the DNA itself. ACTG are the building blocks of the DNA double helix: adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine.
It sounds simple, right? But not at all. I have shown via several posts that there is built-in switching that is designed to deal with common translation errors/mutations. That there are redundancies that are built in to the genome that cannot possibly be explained by the fairy tale of chance mutations. Furthermore, there are all sorts of choices within the genome of every kind of organism, every kind of life both plant and animal, choices that allow the kinds to vary as conditions change in the world around it. Thus we have bears in the Arctic and bears in the equatorial regions. We have organisms that live in extremes of hot and cold. We have fish that live in both fresh and salt water and some kinds that are found in both.
Here is what observational science has found: The mother lays the framework for the child, thus preserving kinds. The way that organisms reproduce is a barrier to so-called macroevolution. Beyond this, there is no source for new information to enter the genome. You bet your bottom dollar that Darwinists have tried to figure out a way for it to happen but it never does. Organisms can lose information and they can sometimes swap information but they do not gain new information so there is no way that some kind of imaginary simple cell ever made itself bigger and more complex. Organisms are not only designed to be able to speciate by accessing the genetic information avaialable within the genome, but they can do it rapidly. At first, Darwinists thought this was great news. Rapid speciation, proof that Darwin was right, yahoo! But once we discovered what speciation really is we also saw that it is a burden to Darwinism rather than a help.
Rapid speciation explains how mankind could separate into a few distinct groups we have called "races" in a short time. Rapid speciation explains the robustness of the kinds, because if there can be five hundred or a thousand distinct varieties of the "dog" kind, that means there are a thousand different environments that the genome can select for to give that particular strain of dogs the advantage.
Readers, I have posted at great length about the great complexity of organisms. We know that engineers study organisms to learn how to make better flying machines and swimming machines and micro-motors and so on. Yes, man studies life to learn to make better devices because God's creation remains more sophisticated than the things we have learned to make. The so-called primitive Trilobite had one of the most remarkable eyes in existence. The Mantis Shrimp can see forms of light we cannot measure accurately ourselves. Life might as well be signed "by God" because it is absolutely designed and it is designed so that no kind of animal can ever become another kind of animal. Now that we know how reproduction happens we know this to be true, the knowledge has not filtered down to the media level yet so Darwinists must be like a child holding his breath. You cannot stay that way, guys. Take a breath and admit that life is designed and move on from there. Can you still build an atheist belief system in a world that was designed? Have at it!
Darwin is dead. He is aware that there is a Creator God now. Darwinism is a canard. It is in fact a totally ridiculous belief system in the light of what we now know about the cell and DNA. It is absurd. I will not pull any punches here, the worldview of Darwinists makes them adhere to an absolutely foolish and ludicrous and totally childish concept. The very idea that a dog came about as a result of billions of happy accidents or that the mind of man just kind of happened somehow? I am sorry, I do try to be nice on this blog but how long do you think people are going to be stupid? Sure, there is a good number of people who do not give much thought to life and existence and they will say, yeah, whatever to the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Krishna or whatever, just move out of their way so they can get home and watch American Idol. But reasonable people with a normal intellect who direct their attention to the cell and still think Darwinism is a valid hypothesis? I am sorry, that is beyond ignorance, it is willful stupidity. Smart people can be stupid. Geniuses get drunk and wrap their cars around utility poles. Great scientists marry a woman who will make their lives a misery.
Please, smart people, throw away your prejudice for just a minute and really think about it. Any idiot can walk through the forest, come upon a house and understand that someone both designed and built it. Take a walk through operational science and come to the cell with an open mind. Be smart. Admit it, the cell is designed, quit living the lie. Maybe it shakes your worldview a bit, but you will feel better about it and yourself once you face the truth for once.
nature.com image
Michael Behe is a believe in Intelligent Design, but he is not a Young Earth Creationist. One does not have to agree with me to be right and I don't have any certain proof that God created the Universe some 6,000 odd years ago. I have evidence but not PROOF. But I do have proof that life was designed. Frankly, an objective look at origins demands that design is accepted, which is why Crick and those like him came up with directed panspermia. He saw DNA for what it was and was intellectually honest enough to see that it was death to Darwinism. Intellectual honesty and self-examination would be a fresh wind that would sweep a lot of garbage from the world of so-called science! Is anybody out there? Can anybody hear? Or will the Darwinists dodge the argument yet again. Life is designed.
One of my goals on this blog is to share the discoveries of scientists from other sites with my readership and to associate it with previously published information in order to inform Christians and non-Christians alike on matters that are of paramount importance. Probably the subject most crucial to this blog is the subject of worldview. In numerous ways I have asserted successfully that worldview usually precedes any consideration of evidences concerning origins. Darwinist commenters have proven this time and time again by stating that only naturalistic causes can be considered when evidences are inspected. This is naturally false and betrays a bias towards naturalism and a prejudice against supernatural causes with no good reasoning to support the viewpoint. No one is qualified to declare that there is no God with any authority.
My premise is that all evidence must be viewed from the point of view that there may or may not be a God. That a Creator God created all things is the prevailing opinion of human history. It was the theme of the majority of the great scientists of the past. It remains the most sensible explanation for existence. Whether Theist or Deist or devoted Christian the scientists pre-Darwin tended to believe that God created and that the study of all things was primarily a means of discerning how the creation of God worked. People believed that a logical explanation for processes could be expected to be found because a Logical Mind had created them.
Now here is where the rubber meets the road: Observation. In recent months I have concentrated on evidence that can be observed and tested and understood today, in the year 2010, without having to make any suppositions but just by applying our finite minds to things that we can pick at and poke right now.
Do you wonder why certain commenters want me to look at ice cores and tree rings? Because there is no way to index either process back more than a few hundred years with great accuracy. A creeper can assert that the number of tree rings on a tree proves that the tree is older than a Noahic Flood would allow for and yet he cannot say with certainty that tree ring formation is constant and can be reliably proven to have worked the same way three thousand years ago. Nor can he assert with confidence how many layers of ice could have been formed in the first few years after a world-wide flood. Nor can he explain why some areas of the ocean have little or no layers of sediment at all, thus making the world appear to be a few decades old. Is it possible that Earth was formed fifty years ago? Of course not!
The reason that commenters want to discuss these things is because they can bring out the "just suppose" stories that provide a long age for a tree or for the ice layers in the Arctic or Greenland. But they cannot possibly prove that their methods are accurate because they cannot index back far enough. The same problem exists with long-age half lifes or the accumulation of chemicals in the ocean. Carbon-14 dating is so unreliable that no one takes it seriously for measuring long ages (supposing these long ages exist) and other dating methods exist that give us widely varying ages. In fact there is no process that has been measured long enough reliably to extrapolate back to a certain starting point in the past, not one that can be proven to be true. Polonium radiohalos and helium atoms in granite and pressurized petroleum and natural gas reservoirs and the presence of DNA and flesh preserved in animals presumed to have passed away millions of years ago just tells us that there will never be a method by which you can prove the age of the Earth.
Transitional forms? Again I say there are none. All animals presented as transitional forms have turned out to be fully formed animals. Usually they are simply a species that is now extinct. Never do we see a half-formed eye or a partially-developed wing system. Never.
The rock records? When reeds can be found thrusting through supposed multiple millions of years of rock that should put the lie to long ages right there. The rock records are a record of catastrophism. The Noahic Flood and its aftermath explain the rocks quite well, including the general order of fossils found and the nature of fosssils found and the order they are found in and the tracks that are left.
These things - tree rings, dating methods, rock records, fossils....they are all from unobservable past events that cannot be observed now. Therefore if you have a good patter and quick moves you can convince people that the pea is under one shell when it is in fact under another...or palmed in your hand. Darwinists can and do build long fairy tales about one tooth found so you can be sure they can really lay down a whopper given a few bones or a tree with a lot of rings. Heck can't David Copperfield make an aircraft carrier disappear?
While I have posted long and hard about rock records and related items, recently I began to concentrate on what we can observe. Life. Microbiologists, cellular biologists, chemists, microengineers, geneticists and etc? They observe life as it is and have discerned the following:
DNA is a design mechanism. It is far more than a blueprint but one could consider it as a very complex set of coding, software if you will. We could think of it as a very precise and sophisticated application that runs on the hardware of the cell. But the cell itself has an operating system that is also drawn from DNA, much like a computer it has hardware and software so while DNA provides the basis for both the operating system but also the applications that run on the cell. But this is not terribly surprising because with four choices rather than the two choices given to computers running on binary code OFF and ON, DNA is built on a ACTG system that allows for many more choices within the tiny physical footprint of the DNA itself. ACTG are the building blocks of the DNA double helix: adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine.
It sounds simple, right? But not at all. I have shown via several posts that there is built-in switching that is designed to deal with common translation errors/mutations. That there are redundancies that are built in to the genome that cannot possibly be explained by the fairy tale of chance mutations. Furthermore, there are all sorts of choices within the genome of every kind of organism, every kind of life both plant and animal, choices that allow the kinds to vary as conditions change in the world around it. Thus we have bears in the Arctic and bears in the equatorial regions. We have organisms that live in extremes of hot and cold. We have fish that live in both fresh and salt water and some kinds that are found in both.
Here is what observational science has found: The mother lays the framework for the child, thus preserving kinds. The way that organisms reproduce is a barrier to so-called macroevolution. Beyond this, there is no source for new information to enter the genome. You bet your bottom dollar that Darwinists have tried to figure out a way for it to happen but it never does. Organisms can lose information and they can sometimes swap information but they do not gain new information so there is no way that some kind of imaginary simple cell ever made itself bigger and more complex. Organisms are not only designed to be able to speciate by accessing the genetic information avaialable within the genome, but they can do it rapidly. At first, Darwinists thought this was great news. Rapid speciation, proof that Darwin was right, yahoo! But once we discovered what speciation really is we also saw that it is a burden to Darwinism rather than a help.
Rapid speciation explains how mankind could separate into a few distinct groups we have called "races" in a short time. Rapid speciation explains the robustness of the kinds, because if there can be five hundred or a thousand distinct varieties of the "dog" kind, that means there are a thousand different environments that the genome can select for to give that particular strain of dogs the advantage.
Readers, I have posted at great length about the great complexity of organisms. We know that engineers study organisms to learn how to make better flying machines and swimming machines and micro-motors and so on. Yes, man studies life to learn to make better devices because God's creation remains more sophisticated than the things we have learned to make. The so-called primitive Trilobite had one of the most remarkable eyes in existence. The Mantis Shrimp can see forms of light we cannot measure accurately ourselves. Life might as well be signed "by God" because it is absolutely designed and it is designed so that no kind of animal can ever become another kind of animal. Now that we know how reproduction happens we know this to be true, the knowledge has not filtered down to the media level yet so Darwinists must be like a child holding his breath. You cannot stay that way, guys. Take a breath and admit that life is designed and move on from there. Can you still build an atheist belief system in a world that was designed? Have at it!
Darwin is dead. He is aware that there is a Creator God now. Darwinism is a canard. It is in fact a totally ridiculous belief system in the light of what we now know about the cell and DNA. It is absurd. I will not pull any punches here, the worldview of Darwinists makes them adhere to an absolutely foolish and ludicrous and totally childish concept. The very idea that a dog came about as a result of billions of happy accidents or that the mind of man just kind of happened somehow? I am sorry, I do try to be nice on this blog but how long do you think people are going to be stupid? Sure, there is a good number of people who do not give much thought to life and existence and they will say, yeah, whatever to the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Krishna or whatever, just move out of their way so they can get home and watch American Idol. But reasonable people with a normal intellect who direct their attention to the cell and still think Darwinism is a valid hypothesis? I am sorry, that is beyond ignorance, it is willful stupidity. Smart people can be stupid. Geniuses get drunk and wrap their cars around utility poles. Great scientists marry a woman who will make their lives a misery.
Please, smart people, throw away your prejudice for just a minute and really think about it. Any idiot can walk through the forest, come upon a house and understand that someone both designed and built it. Take a walk through operational science and come to the cell with an open mind. Be smart. Admit it, the cell is designed, quit living the lie. Maybe it shakes your worldview a bit, but you will feel better about it and yourself once you face the truth for once.
nature.com image
Michael Behe is a believe in Intelligent Design, but he is not a Young Earth Creationist. One does not have to agree with me to be right and I don't have any certain proof that God created the Universe some 6,000 odd years ago. I have evidence but not PROOF. But I do have proof that life was designed. Frankly, an objective look at origins demands that design is accepted, which is why Crick and those like him came up with directed panspermia. He saw DNA for what it was and was intellectually honest enough to see that it was death to Darwinism. Intellectual honesty and self-examination would be a fresh wind that would sweep a lot of garbage from the world of so-called science! Is anybody out there? Can anybody hear? Or will the Darwinists dodge the argument yet again. Life is designed.