Where's PETA when it counts?
Posted on 08/23/2005 10:39:22 AM PDT by woodb01
The Golden Calf of Evolution is on Fire…
STORY SOURCE
NoDNC.com staff
The recent notice that Harvard was going to engage in “advocacy” research (it’s difficult to call the advocacy science) shows how concerned the evolution camp is about the theory of intelligent design. Contrary to popular myth, the theory of evolution has many holes. The only way evolution continues to survive is because people don’t actually stop to think about the absurd things that evolution requires one to accept on totally blind faith.
If in fact evolution were truly a science, then according to the scientific method, challenges to the theory of evolution, even a challenge calling itself “intelligent design” would be readily accepted. The whole notion of science is to put forth a theory, and then work to further develop the theory, or abandon it, based on challenges to discrete aspects of that theory. Real science not only accepts those challenges, but encourages them to ensure its accuracy. Evolutionists routinely censor and attack all dissent.
Now why would real scientists be so concerned about “intelligent design?” Why would prestigious Harvard University commit to invest a million dollars annually in a new program dedicated on the origins of life in relation to evolution? And as Harvard chemistry professor David Liu noted "My expectation, is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."
That is an interesting statement from a scientist. In professional circles, this is called “confirmatory bias” and it is not about science, but about making additional theories fit the predefined outcome that you want them to fit. It is advocacy “research” and not science. After all, with evolution, there is no way to test or verify history, so it is routine to just “create” anything you can imagine to fill the void, anything except intelligent design. Taking their cues from cults, when something doesn’t fit, just make up something that can’t be verified.
The secret of why Darwinists (evolutionists) see intelligent design as a threat is because in its simplest form, it is not only verifiable, but intelligent design is an ideal corollary [FN1] to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Paraphrased that law says:
Any system, on its own, moves from order to disorder, and eventually becomes totally random.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is considered an absolute, solid, verified truth in science. The reason it is considered a “law” in science is because it is said to apply to all matter in the entire universe and in all situations and circumstances. It has been tested, re-tested, verified, and re-verified and found to be a universal scientific truth.
Why is the Second Law of Thermodynamics Important?
Evolution defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In plain terms, it expects people to accept, on blind, unverifiable faith, that out of disorder, and through a bunch of accidents, order is created--, disorder becomes order.
Another way of looking at that would be to think of a deck of cards, carefully shuffled and thrown high in the air. With the expectation that eventually an “accident” would happen which would cause all 52 cards in the deck, to fall in perfect order, and perfectly aligned. [FN2]
Now we get to the interesting part, the part that absolutely horrifies Darwinists and all evolutionists in particular. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS THE COROLLARY [See FN1] TO THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS!
With external inputs of energy, directed in a specialized way, disorder and randomness can be ordered.
Any system, whether open or closed, requires specialized work or specialized energy input to go from disorder to order. This same specialized work or specialized energy input is also required just to maintain order.
Let’s look at it this way. If you work at a desk, or construction, or homemaker, or whatever your job is, there are parallels. Evolutionists expect you to believe that if you leave a mess long enough, a set of accidents will eventually occur that will organize all your papers, build a new house, or clean each room in your house, etc. This is plain nonsense and not science.
Evolutionists realize that a COROLLARY to the Second Law of Thermodynamics is both science, is testable, is verifiable, and is true. This is why they are terrified. For evolution to “work” it requires that a settled scientific LAW be changed to accommodate it. Evolution’s FALSE COROLLARY to the Second Law of Thermodynamics expects one to accept the following paraphrased idea:
With external inputs of energy, random or disordered energy creates order.
In more “evolutionary” terms, enough accidents, stacked on top of each other, for a long enough period of time, creates order and perfection. Never mind that evolution also says that “natural selection” destroys all “accidents” that don’t have almost immediate usefulness. It is lunacy to believe that from random occurrence you gain greater and greater order. It then becomes zealous fanaticism when you deny that this is anything more than a secular fundamentalist belief system. In fact, this is in direct defiance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Under evolution, instead of moving toward disorder, we are moving toward order.
On one hand we hear that life has developed and “evolved” through “accidents” that create the variations of the species. And in contradiction to everything coming about because of these “accidents,” Darwin’s evolutionists say that “natural selection” does away with the “accidents” and “chooses” the superior “accidents.” On one hand we have life being created, derived, developed and sustained through “accidents,” and on the other hand we have life being destroyed and killed off (natural selection) because the accidents aren’t the “right type” of accident.
STOP AND THINK about what evolution demands you to believe. Disorder creates order, accidents fix things. This is not only intellectually dishonest, it is absurd when you stop to think about it.
Is this Corollary Theory of the Second Law – Intelligent Design – Testable?
Routinely we hear from the evolution crowd that intelligent design is not testable. Not only is this blatantly false, the Corollary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (intelligent design) has been proven over, and over, and over again. In fact, it continues to be proven many thousands of times a day.
Every time a pharmaceutical medication is taken to treat a disorder, whether it is physical or mental, it is a test of the theory of intelligent design. The Pharmaceutical companies that research new drug applications to treat disease not only defy “natural selection” but direct energy and efforts to cure a disorder which results in a medication to treat the disorder.
Every time a doctor performs a necessary surgery, that is successful, it is not only a test of intelligent design, but proof that it is valid. The Physician brings order to disorder and again defies “natural selection.”
Over and over again, architect, electrical engineer, physicist, chemist, veterinary, and any number of professions routinely cheat “natural selection” with intelligent design. Over and over again evolution’s “accidents” and “natural selections” are overcome by intelligent design.
Is it any wonder that the evolution crowd is terrified by intelligent design? Proving intelligent design disproves evolution. When considering intelligent design as a corollary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as well as easily tested and verified, it’s no wonder evolutionists are frightened.
Why so narrowly confined?
When major problems with evolution are raised, such as the INPUTS to the whole evolutionary process, evolutionists shriek, almost in horrified pain “that doesn’t apply,” or “that’s another area.” Take for example the origins of life itself. When raising the proposition that the origins of the chemical INPUTS to life, and the origins of life itself are critical building blocks to verify whether or not evolution is valid, routine shrieks of “abiogenesis” or some other silly segment of the process is invoked to defend the indefensible. These silly segmentations, which alone may disprove evolution, are routinely segmented out of the idea of evolution. These things are treated almost as if they must be warded off with some magical talisman or incantation against any evil spirits that might challenge the evolutionary cult. Evolutionists hide behind these silly, ridiculous, and utterly absurd notions that you can build valid science on a small piece of a process and leave out all of the pieces that the process depends on.
When parts of the process not only demonstrate that the sacred theory of evolution may be invalid or false, the shrieks of heresy and blasphemy are raised. This isn’t science, it is utter madness disguised as science. And certainly I can understand why the issue of the initial origins of life terrify evolutionists. The idea of “abiogenesis” expects one to accept on blind faith that life just “magically appeared” from some accidents with rocks, water, and a few base chemicals. Evolution suggests that right after that life was created, it began evolving. This is difficult to believe when you stop and think about it. Life “magically appears” from rocks, water, and a few chemicals? I’m still amazed that all those alchemists in the middle ages couldn’t find a way to do something as simple as turning lead into gold. If they had simply applied evolution’s teachings, water would have been gold, diamonds, and every other form of precious gem.
Evolutionary theory demands that only physical / material properties can be evaluated. This notion completely ignores the fact that human beings have the ability to reason, to think through things, to make value judgments, to make decisions, to choose right or wrong, to have order and structure or to have disorder and chaos.
This is another point of conflict, if you accept evolution’s true premises, only natural selection is valid and all of our morals, values, and social structures aren’t valid. But they exist and their very existence proves that evolution has more holes. So what do the evolutionists do? No problem, they say that social structures just don’t apply. It’s not “material” so we won’t even consider it.
Evolution by other names is the law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, kill or be killed, a form of “natural” eugenics, etc. So, if you remove the social structures, the laws, rules, morals, values, the social structures, all you have are wild animals.
The “law of the jungle” part of evolution is a glaring defect and a strong demonstration that evolution misses the mark. There is something more to human life than just “kill or be killed.” So what do the evolutionists do? They simply spout their dogma “that doesn’t apply, we’re only looking at the material world!” It’s easy to understand why they would do this, under the idea of eugenics, Hitler slaughtered millions.
If you stop and think about what “evolutionary processes” was required to create emotions, social structure, values, order, and the awareness of “self,” it is easy to understand why evolutionists are terrified of this. By their nature, by what these things ARE, they are not “natural” evolutionary occurrences. By themselves, they could not have come about by any type of evolutionary theory known today. So having these “artificial” structures imposed on “evolution” disproves evolution.
Evolution’s true believers treat any challenge to their sacred cow as blasphemy or heresy --, I guess that’s a normal reaction to a religious belief.
Evolutionists are terrified. And the debate must be contained. If the debate is not contained, the public school indoctrination and the cult of evolution will collapse. Once people actually stop and think about the blind leaps of faith that evolution requires, it will be seen as the cult it is. Evolution is nothing but wild religious beliefs clothed with the appearance of science.
The golden calf of evolution is on fire. As more and more people actually stop and THINK THROUGH the lunacy that evolution expects you to believe on totally blind faith, evolution will finally be seen for what it truly is, a religion pretending to be science. At that point the fire consuming the golden calf of evolution will turn it to ashes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[FN1] A corollary is something that is generally a “natural consequence” of the thing it is related to. So when a corollary is based on something that is already proven, the corollary generally does not require much proof because it is accepted and understood. For example, water freezes and turns to ice at about 32 degrees (F) depending on atmospheric conditions. A corollary would be that water melts as it rises above 32 degrees (F).
[FN2] Before all of the shrieks from the Darwinists, what I have just outlined is called an analogous syllogism, it is a writing tool to help understand complex issues.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Additional Resources:
Links:
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Web_Links&l_op=viewlink&cid=12Resources:
DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution (DNA is PROVING that evolution is a hoax)
The controversy over evolution includes a growing number of scientists who challenge Darwinism. (The fraud of Darwinism...)
Einstein Versus Darwin: Intelligent Design Or Evolution? (Most LEGITIMATE Scientists do NOT agree with Evolution)
What’s the Big Secret? (Intelligent Design in Pennsylvania)
What are the Darwinists afraid of? (The fervent religious belief in evolution)
The Little Engine That Could...Undo Darwinism (Evolution may be proven false very soon)
Where's PETA when it counts?
It (Ichys post) was presented as evidence of "transitional" fossils purportedly showing the progression from dinosaur to bird. Are you saying that it may not be that way...that the scientific data he presented is in error?
And even if you were right, evolution isn't a steady progression from a to z. It's two steps forward, one back. Observing the one back step doesn't invalidate the argument that there's stepping going on.
That's honestly a new one on me. Things devolve in order to later evolve. So you're saying that some of the fossils we dig up might not actually be example of evolution, but devolution? Why don't they just use some kind of super duper test to check the age of the bones instead of having to guess where they belong in an evolutionary sequence?
Correct.
That doesn't mean, however, that I have made the elementary mistake of saying that one is ancestral to the other.
In a nutshell this is the order he listed as a sequence in evolution: [snip] Now there are scientists, professors even, well versed and well studied in paleotology and avian evolution who insist that Caudipteryx is a descendent of Archaeopteryx.
Really? Who?
So my question is: Why isn't the matter settled?
You have yet to document that it actually *isn't*.
Why can't they just point and laugh at the idiot scientists who obviously have dated these fossils wrong?
Because cladistic trees aren't based on dates in the first place. Maybe you should make sure you actually know what you're talking about before you attempt to spot a "flaw" in my posts.
After all evolution (as pointed out by so many) is a proven fact.
And it is.
You would think that scientists in the same field would be able to agree on the age of a fossil. But their aging varies by apparently millions of years.
You have a vivid imagination.
Occam's Razor. If it isn't science, it's the kind of logic science uses. Parsimony. Cladistics is all about parsimony.
It makes sense that God created the universe and the creatures in it to me.
You know, I had a theory that that's what was going on with your incredulity. It fit the data I had. What looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck probably is a duck. You're a creationist objecting on religious grounds and grasping at any straw he can find. That's what you looked like.
Same thing with that cladogram. It makes the most sense according to a parsimony analysis of the fossils we have.
Ah...I see. So then in fact the fossils Ichy presented are not really transitional fossils, but fossils that merely show a transition? The actual fossils used aren't the important thing?
There's a huge preponderance of opinion that birds are descended from theropods.
There's a huge preponderance of opinion that God created man and every living creature. You'll have to do better than that if you want to make a scientific point. For example, there is NOT a huge preponderance of opinion that says 2+2=5 or that a water molecule is composed of 5 parts of carbon.
That's even worse than stable, like Arafat.
I was pretty proud of my last post...why didn't you read it. Alan Feduccia? Wikipedia states about Caudipteryx
: "Feduccia believes these fossils are flightless birds that evolved from a flying ancestor, probably Archaeopteryx."
Why can't they just point and laugh at the idiot scientists who obviously have dated these fossils wrong?
Because cladistic trees aren't based on dates in the first place. Maybe you should make sure you actually know what you're talking about before you attempt to spot a "flaw" in my posts.
So what was the point in posting a cladistic tree to show the transistion of dinosaurs into birds if it has nothing to do with dating? Isn't evolution about change over time? Are you saying that how old fossils actually are has no bearing? Scratch that. Let me ask straight out. How old are each of the fossils in the "transitional sequence" (your words) that you posted?
I'm genuinely curious as to dates and why or why they don't matter.
Thankfully, science is not defined by appeal to popularity.
Looks rather twisty-shouty. You can never tell if fossil A is the direct ancestor of fossil B even if it is older and everything looks right. You might find a better contemporary candidate for direct ancestry later. That's just how it is.
It still means something if you find a fossil series that morphs like movie frames, even if one frame is seemingly out of order. You consistently decline to explain why such a thing exists at all if it doesn't mean what most scientists think it does.
There's a huge preponderance of opinion that God created man and every living creature.
A lot of scientists who accept evolution are in that statistic. Strawman.
You'll have to do better than that if you want to make a scientific point.
Why don't you try doing better? I am citing the preponderance of opinion in science. You are citing one Alan Feduccia, last I saw. Except Feduccia does think birds evolved from reptiles only it was archosaurs. He thinks so precisely because he can make a case for it based on some morphological similarities. His problem is that the same logic makes a far better case for theropods. Your problem is you don't accept any of this logic at all and have no real horse to put in the race except your unwillingness to understand.
For example, there is NOT a huge preponderance of opinion that says 2+2=5 or that a water molecule is composed of 5 parts of carbon.
Indeed there is not. Were you composing in a hurry? Let me try again: There is a huge preponderance of evidence and opinion in science that birds evolved from dinosaurs. You were asking why it isn't settled. It's basically settled. There are always a few tenacious borderline-crackpot types in science. Lots of people work in that area and we don't screen for sanity.
Tell that to Dr. Alan Feduccia...
A classic to rank with National Lampoon's.
Then why are people posting fossil sequences and purporting to prove evolution? By your own admission it's uncertain and inexact.
It still means something if you find a fossil series that morphs like movie frames, even if one frame is seemingly out of order. You consistently decline to explain why such a thing exists at all if it doesn't mean what most scientists think it does
I can come up with a lot of reasons. I would say that they're similiar creatures that lived about the same time. Or they're similiar creatures that lived at different times. Throw out your belief in transistional fossils and all that it implies and how would you prove me wrong? It should be easy, shouldn't it?
Oh, yeah. You're right it would work like that. Dummy me, I fell for tallhappy's deception. If the glove don't fit, you must aquit (another spin, another place).
In other words, of all the zillions of cells infected, only three patients got the bad locus, and even then it was likely to have happened in one solitary cell.
I see it.
In cladistic analyses, Caudipteryx is usually shown to be closely related to the Oviraptoridae.Cladistic analysis tends to be based on a broad spectrum of comparative features and often needs a computer for all the number crunching.
Paleontologists Alan Feduccia and Larry Martin, however, claim the remains are not dinosaurian at all, but those of a bird. They note that the fossils have a short tail, similar to the bird Confusiusornis, and the skull shows many birdlike features that are not found in theropods. Stomach stones were present, which indicate that these were herbivores, resembling Enanthiornites and flightless birds. The fossils have no predatory hand claws like theropods, and lack the serrated teeth typical of theropods. Feduccia believes these fossils are flightless birds that evolved from a flying ancestor, probably Archaeopteryx.
Feduccia and Martin have zoomed in on a handful of features that favor their idea. Here's what my link you didn't read said about cladistics versus the theropod deniers:
Finally, such opponents also refuse to use the methods and evidence normally accepted by comparative evolutionary biologists, such as phylogenetic systematics and parsimony. They rely more on an "intuitive approach," which is not a method at all but just an untestable gestalt impression laden with assumptions about how evolution must work. The "controversy" remains an interest more of the press than the general scientific community.A bigger question. It's no problem telling any extant bird from any extant reptile. The idea seems almost ridiculous. But here's Caudipteryx and it seems hard to decide if it's a dinosaur or a bird.
Evolution says transitions are smooth. THERE SHOULD BE specimens whose status in one bin or the other is extremely arguable because the bins are arbitrary and the change is smooth. Caudipteryx is just one example of a thing like that. (Archaeopteryx itself is the more classic example. It's almost a perfect half and half between a bird and a dinosaur.)
Evolution says related things diverge from each other in time. That's again what we see. You can't confuse any bird with any reptile today. Go back in time, you get confused. The bins which are based on modern forms don't work. Everything is converging. Same thing happens with reptiles and mammals. Land animals and whales. Humans and apes.
You don't have a story for that, do you? You're going to brazenly ignore it. Evolution says there's this branching tree. There is. Creationism spends most of its time denying the evidence even exists.
I meant what I said. The point was that virtually no scientist thinks that 2+2=5 or that a water molecule is composed of anything but 2 parts of hydrogen and one part of oxygen. Opinion doesn't matter. It's hard, basic, provable testable science.
You were asking why it isn't settled. It's basically settled. There are always a few tenacious borderline-crackpot types in science. Lots of people work in that area and we don't screen for sanity.
Feduccia is a crackpot? He literally wrote the book on avian evolution. He's not alone. The disagreement among evolutionists are there because it's not like math and chemistry where the answers are obvious and testable.
You mean...the so-called "missing" link is no longer missing! Oh, horrors! What'll they do? What'll they do?
[Ichneumon:] No it doesn't. Learn how to read a cladistic tree, you dolt. It says that Caudipteryx's ancestors split off from the Archaeopteryx lineage prior to the splitting off of the families which appear between them in the tree.
[DouglasKC:] I'm able to post without calling you names.
That's because I don't make goofy, triumphant, idiotically false accusations against you which warrant pointing out that I'm behaving like an idiot.
I would expect the same consideration.
You have my full permission that if I ever *do* behave like that much of an idiot, the same consideration would apply.
You make the point yourself in your post that there is an evolutionary sequence involving each of those critters. It's in your post.
No, it isn't. Not in the way you misstate it, anyway.
You even have commentary pointing out the evolutionary changes to us dolts.
Not clearly *enough*, it seems...
[DouglasKC:] However, there are evolutionary avian experts who posit the exact opposite...that Caudipteryx evolved from Archaeopteryx.
[Ichneumon:] Feel free to name them, and cite their research to that effect.
[DouglasKC:] Thanks, I will.
Apparently you won't, because the page you link doesn't actually say what you claim it says.
This is the faculty page for Dr. Allan Feduccia. Dr. Feduccia teaches at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is an expert in the field of avian evolution. The webpage says : "Alan Feduccia's research centers on the origin and early evolution of flight, feathers, and endothermy. He is also interested in the evolution of birds through the Tertiary, the origins of flightlessness and the evolution of other morphological specializations in the world avifauna, and avian systematics in general." The page has references that state: His new book The Origin and Evolution of Birds was the lead science book for Yale University Press for the fall of 1996, and winner of the 1996 Scholarly and Professional Publishing Award of the Association of American Publishers. Feduccia has recently published cover articles in Science and Naturwissenschaften, and the former was listed in Discover Magazine's top 50 news stories of 1993, and in Science News' science news of the year. Undoubtedly he is an expert in the field.
Blah, blah, blah. I don't care about anyone's alleged qualifications (as we all know, even the "experts" can screw up), especially when you're quoting their *own* descriptions of themselves, I care whether their evidence holds water. But that's a moot question in this case, since you misread the web page anyway. The web page you link below actually agrees with *my* cladogram, not your own sequence.
Yet he thinks that your evolutionary sequence is not correct. His views are best summed up in this article..
It's sweet that you spammed so much of Feduccia's resume in your post, when there's *NOTHING* on that page you linked which quotes Feduccia saying anything whatsoever to support your contention that he's one of the folks who are, you claim, "evolutionary avian experts who posit the exact opposite...that Caudipteryx evolved from Archaeopteryx".
The only thing that Feduccia says on that link is that he "isn't convinced" that the featherlike markings on some fossils actually are feathers.
Oooookay... And this is the same as asserting that "Caudipteryx evolved from Archaeopteryx" HOW, exactly? Oh, right, it isn't.
The really funny part is that the page you link actually *agrees* with me that Protarchaeopteryx "was more developed than Caudipteryx" (i.e., comes *after* it on the cladogram, not before).
Care to try again?
Be careful of leaning too heavily on Feduccia, by the way -- while it's highly unlikely that even he is foolish enough to actually claim what you say he does (that "Caudipteryx evolved from Archaeopteryx") because he would actually place them on very *SEPARATE* lineages in his minority "birds did not evolve from dinosaurs but from something else" view, he's not a great authority on much else either, because he's rather a crank on the subject, and is famous for getting a lot of elementary things wrong. No *wonder* he's such a darling of creationists, and speaks at their meetings. Feduccia and Larry Miller are pretty much the *only* holdouts to the now widely accepted (due to the evidence) conclusion that birds did, indeed, descend from theopod dinosaurs in the manner indicated by the cladogram I posted.
[No we're not. You really haven't a clue as to how cladistic trees are constructed, or read, have you?]
Well clue me in sport.
Cladograms are not based on dates.
Obviously I'm not understanding something here.
Obviously.
How many years transpired between Caudipteryx and Archaeopteryx and what tests can you show me that prove it?
I don't know and I don't care (go look it up yourself), the dates of the specimens are irrelevant to the construction of the cladogram, for the same reason that the following creationist slogan is a silly fallacy: "If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?", and similar misconceptions (i.e., amphibians evolved from fish, but there are still fish even today).
[No, because a) cladistic trees are based on a huge amount of actual evidence, not "guesses", and b) your own "guess" is highly unlikely to be "as good as another" because you're a complete idiot when it comes to biology.]
Minus the (5? 10? 15?) actual fossils
Thousands.
and how the scientists interpret them,
...and the thousands of observed characteristics in each fossil...
what is the huge amount of actual evidence?
See above.
And where was your so-called "evolution" before trees evolved?!?
HA!
Because many people are less clue-resistant than yourself and the display you are making will not convince anyone who gets it better than you do.
I can come up with a lot of reasons. I would say that they're similiar creatures that lived about the same time. Or they're similiar creatures that lived at different times.
Your Nobel awaits you, Einstein.
I will here repost the standard form of the "No transitional forms" dialogue.
But wasn't all that evidence relevant when it was supposedly missing?
- Tap-Dancing Science-Denier declares that the fossil record lacks instances of things changing in an orderly series from some Thing A to Thing Z. As this kind of evidence is to be expected, the lack of it must weigh against evolution having happened. By the very statement of this objection we are invited to believe the Tap-Dancing Science-Denier would accept such evidence IF ONLY IT EXISTED but the thing is it doesn't exist.
- Someone who disagrees demonstrates many instances well known in the literature of fossil series intermediate in form and time between some Thing A and some Thing Z.
- The Tap-Dancer then declares fossil series evidence to be irrelevant. How do we know ... various things? The dates of the fossils? Whether fossil A lies exactly on the ancestral line of fossil B?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.