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)
I won't be back until tomorrow morning now, either!
That's because evolution isn't simple math and high school chemistry.
Life forms are basically chemical engines, yet we're far from understanding everything chemically relevant to them. But still, there is no question that life operates on chemistry.
Likewise there's no real question that species diverge via evolution. That there's questions about the intimate details of Archy is meaningless vs. that fact.
He may have written A book on it. There figure to be better ones.
Pretty much, yeah. Okay, that's putting it a bit too harshly in his case, but calling him something a bit milder like a "crank" wouldn't be at all inaccurate.
Do a Google on his name, skip the fawning creationist websites (they love anyone who "bucks the evolutionist party line", even if he still espouses Darwinian evolution as Feduccia does), skip Feduccia's own personal pages, and most of what you're left with is pages of folks pointing out Feduccia's many mistakes on the subject.
For example:
The problems with The Origin and Evolution of Birds. Discussion of the problems with hypotheses made by Dr. Alan Feduccia in his new book on bird evolution, plus general discussion on the dinosaurian affinities birds.
He literally wrote the book on avian evolution.
ROFL! He wrote *a* book on avian evolution (*his* book). That's not the same thing as being the person who wrote "the book" on a subject, i.e. the person who established the field in a way that all others follow.
He's not alone.
You're right, there's *one* other prominent guy who feels the same way (Miller). But the *pair* of them are alone...
The disagreement among evolutionists are there because it's not like math and chemistry where the answers are obvious and testable.
No, it's because there are always a few cranks in any field. Make it worth my while and I'll go find you some folks who sign on to "2+2=5" and "there's carbon in a water molecule" too.
There is a blog section.
It may just need to be put in the right forum.
Thats a pretty mild "offense".
ERB stole that from Helena Petrovna Blavatsky
What's the matter? Hasn't the statute of limitations run out by now?
(End smart-ass answer). I will check out your link. Thanks!
I'm not making a display. I'm asking genuine questions and generally getting insulted for asking them. Trying to pin down the evolutionary arguments presented is like trying to squeeze jello. Transitional fossils shown to prove evolution may not actually be transitional fossils, but are presented to show that transistions in evolution exist. Does that sound weird to anyone else?
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?
I'm serious here. For the life of me I can't figure out why actual dates seem like an afterthought to evolution. Now I find out that it's not important because things may devolve, and not evolve, so dates mean nothing. Is that about the argument?
They'll proclaim that where previously there was one "gap" in the fossil sequence, there are now TWO "gaps," one on either side of the "missing link." They will then conclude that the case for evolution is weaker than before, because the number of "gaps" in the fossil sequence is increasing!
See how easy anti-Evo thinking is? Why it doesn't even take any brains at all....
And yet you posted drivel from the "NoDNC.com staff" on FR a few days back and got bitch slapped then too.
Even if she did spend a year below the Temple of the Sun.
One of the editions has a cover with a nice Dejah view.
later read.
Randomness has little to do with the conclusion. All that is needed is a distribution of insertion loci. Were the same virus DNA inserted in different places in closely related species, that would suffice.
The difference is that anybody who believes that 2+2=5 won't get scientific papers published. Peer review and testing will quickly establish that there are serious problems with their hypothesis. Not so with evolutionists who stray from the camp. Generally they go against a consensus of opinion, not against established facts. Can you see why evolution is falling out of favor? Evolutionists not only attack non-evolutionists, but they also attack eminently qualified scientists who disagree with the idea that is currently in vogue.
Actually, transitions are roughly smooth.
There are those who will follow the data where it leads. They are called scientists.
There are those who will follow the Bible/CS/ID where it dictates. They are not called scientists. In fact, they do their best to destroy science, the scientific method, and any scientist who disagree with their faith-based positions.
It is becoming increasingly useless on these threads to conduct meaningful discussions between the two opposites. There are different world views and different languages being used. It only leads to frustration.
Some of those who are in-between may be educated by the exchange, and that's a good thing, but I have given up trying to convince the young-earth and similar proponents of anything. Life is too short to deal with that level of obfuscation. Live and let live.
But these folks trash the scientific method, scientists, and the entire data-driven, logical, scientific world at their peril. What do they think keeps us ahead of the game in Iraq and Afghanistan? And in the next hot spot?
Trash science like this and you may well be toe-to-toe with scimitars. Kept up on your fencing lessons?
Well thank you, an honest answer is always refreshing.
Life forms are basically chemical engines, yet we're far from understanding everything chemically relevant to them. But still, there is no question that life operates on chemistry.
Very true.
Likewise there's no real question that species diverge via evolution. That there's questions about the intimate details of Archy is meaningless vs. that fact.
There is certainly a question as evidenced by the growing debate. You haven't done it as far as i can see, but it's going to be increasingly difficult for evolutionists to continue their tactic of labeling those who don't accept their worldview as ignorant kooks and nuts.
For a pun like that you are banned in civilized company roughly forever.
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.