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)
Trash science like this and you may well be toe-to-toe with scimitars. Kept up on your fencing lessons?
I like the Indy Jones theory of how to handle scimitar experts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good, honest start, but look at your underlying ASSUMPTION here that bacterium were even actually AVAILABLE to REPRODUCE to begin with. HOW AND WHERE did they develop the mechanisms to be able to reproduce at all? Why didn't they all DIE before the first "accident" that made it possible for them to reproduce occurred? Look at the assumptions that have to be made to support evolutionary THEORY... Consider all of the AMAZING things that had to happen over, and over, and over again... At least with a POWERBALL lottery, I think the mathematical odds of me winning it with 6 numbers, 3 or 4 CONSECUTIVE TIMES would be better than ONE time of having the 52 cards all fall PERFECTLY and stack up neatly. By your own math, the PROBABILITY of the 52 cards happening just ONCE approaches zero probability. THEN stack all of these amazing miracles on top of each other, for all of those MILLIONS of supposed "accidental improvements" and all of the diversity of species and it becomes MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to have evolution. Then again, just the DNA strand itself, with its encoded instructions demonstrates that evolution is mathematically impossible.
----------------------------------------------------------------
OK, I take your point. I went back to my trust Excel spreadsheet and tried it again. This time I assume that each cycle, 1/4 of the existing bacteria die before reproducing (from predation, lack of space/resources or infeasible genetic combinations from the mutations). This time I get 2.49x10^74 bacteria (somebody with better math skills can redo the calculation if they want). But 2.49x10^74 bacteria is still so large that it almost guarantees a 100% chance that the genetic cards would land in order. Even when I redo the assumption that mutations only happen once in every trillion reproductions, you still get a 100% chance. Again, if you have a better grasp of stats than I do and you see that I made a mistake, I'd be grateful if you could point it out, but otherwise the conclusion seems clear to me. You are right that the chances of random mutations that are "just so" are quite small, but the chances are actually quite good when compared to the sheer number of opportunities in the natural world through the normal process of reproduction.
I suggest you look up the word "Idiom"
"pillars of society"
"sunrise"
Nah, they're to busy sharpening their swords and calling people idiots to consult a dictionary.
We breathlessly await your return....
That was a remarkably clear and informative post. Thank you.
We breathlessly await your return....
One more cup of coffee and aorta be ready to resume.
Let me remind the lurkers that you are waving your alleged inability to get evolutionary arguments as a wave-away for post 661 by Ichneumon. Your introductory statement: "Ichneumons stunning post on transitionals is deeply flawed."
Out of all that post, you have myopically focussed upon the supposed deep flaw represented by Caudipteryx being later than Archaeopteryx, together with Feduccia's rather eccentric theories.
Your concerns on that point have been addressed directly. You don't have a valid point. But even if the anomaly was real, it wouldn't explain anything about why we have parallel evidence for reptiles becoming mammals, or land animals becoming whales, or fish eventually becoming elephants, and why molecular evidence points to the same phylogenetic relationships we get from morphology and the fossil record. The inadequacy of your mumbles in the post to which I responded needs no further comment from me.
One last point on the lameness of citing Feduccia.
Quotations and Misquotations: Why What Antievolutionists Quote is Not Valid Evidence Against EvolutionPicking and choosing authorities
In advertisements for movies, it is usually taken for granted that the studios only quote positive reviews. This kind of Madison Avenue tactic is not a legitimate means of establishing the nature of reality. One cannot just pick the expert whose opinion is convenient for the point one is trying to make while ignoring credible expert opinion to the contrary. This is especially the case when the quoted authority is in the minority among his fellow experts. There might be a very good reason why the authority's views are in the minority. If a writer argues by hand-picking only the experts convenient to him, then that writer has committed the "argument from authority" fallacy. Antievolutionists do this routinely.
- Alan Feduccia who opposes the idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs and instead argues that birds are descended from non-dinosaur archosaurs (a taxon that includes dinosaurs) is often quoted by evolution deniers. Feduccia is a qualified scientist and should not be just dismissed, but his views are in an extreme minority within the scientific community. It is simply bad reasoning for the evolution deniers to use Feduccia's writing disagreeing with conventional ideas of bird evolution while ignoring the many experts that disagree with him.
"Is Archaeopteryx a 'missing link'?"1 quotes Feduccia on Archaeopteryx:
Was Archaeopteryx a feathered dinosaur? Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that."
Notice the author is citing Feduccia's conclusion, and not his evidence. There is no mention that that his opinion is a minority opinion. Feduccia's peers in the field of bird evolution are "authorities" too. In short this creationist is saying that Feduccia is an authority and that he says that birds are not descended from dinosaurs, therefore birds are not descended from dinosaurs. It is a classic "argument from authority." It is also very inconsistent. Feduccia also says that evolution occurs, so if this argument is to be followed to its logical conclusion, this creationist must accept the evolution of birds from non-birds! One could also cite many more authorities that say birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs. This is why one should not pick and choose authorities. If Feduccia does turn out to be correct and his views become established within the scientific community, then the evolution deniers will probably become fond of quoting what Kevin Padian and other proponents of birds being descended from dinosaurs had to say about Feduccia's views.
Trust your initial instincts
I'm not making mistakes nor deceiving anyone.
What mistakes are you referring to? If they are mistaken then they should be corrected.
Without researching the issue, I seem to remember that Columbus' crew were terrified of falling off the edge of the earth. Irregardless of what Aquinas and Augustine thought, the common Christian *culture*, which dominated that time period, thought the earth was flat.
Intelligent Christian thinkers today, such as Francis S. Collins of the Human Genome project and John Paul II have no problem reconciling evolution and the Bible. But like in the middle ages, it's the red neck know nothings in the Bible Belt who don't get it and refuse to listen.
Still you admitted and acknowldged viral insertsion is not random as you claimed You have recognized that insertion and selection can result in highly specific integration events.
What I'd say is stop trying to think everyone is out to get you and deceive you.
Cut the attitude and you might get somewhere.
Et tu, tallhappy!
I'm bookmarking this thread just for your posts.
Very nice!
My one question is why did he perpetrate the misinformation?
It's hard to conclude that it wasn't deliberate. And if deliberate, then why?
Perhaps he's a genuine professional IDer, looking to sap more donation money for the Discovery Institute or another non-profit.
As the environmental advocacy community of Sierra Club, Greenpeas etc. have demonstrated, there's lots of money out there. And the Christian community has remarkably few national non-profits living off it. So the pickings are ripe for those dishonest enough to separate Christians from their money in return for emotional issues confronted.
Hippie sticker: "Imagine whirled peas!"
So it's not actually "3 of only 9 integrations", as tallhappy falsely claims, since just *two* out of the nine total patients had TWO HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE MILLION retrovirus-treated cells pumped into their bodies...
You are actually funny in your misunderstanding. Retrovirus treated is not necessarily the same as virally integrated, not all integrated will be of relevance in the treatment (analagous to an evolutionary insertion that occurs long term).
After transplanting 100 million vector exposed cells )random exposure) in 11 patients, 9 patients had functional integrations and of the 9 three had integrations at the LMO2 locus
That's very non-random.
Recall as I pointed out that specificity of integration involves the initial molecular events related to the DNA recombination event and subsequent cellular selction processes.
My initial instincts were that you were a desperate lawyer picking at the only issue with any traction at all.
At best, the information you presented appeared to conflict with Ichneumon's. And my initial instinct was that even assuming ERVs inserted at a single site, the evidence still showed common ancestry.
But even the insertion pattern found in primates and humans made no sense vs. your point. If ERVs always inserted at the same point, then the species distribution of ERVs would be random vs. the species divergence. And/or all related species would have all "hot spots" in their genomes occupied by ERVs.
I was giving you plenty of benefit of the doubt on this, even though I wasn't convinced on your point from the beginning.
So if I spray an area, blindfolded, with a machine gun, and three people are hit, I can say the bullets were nonrandom because all of the effective bullets hit people.
There comes a time to realize things have been explained and people can see. You went past it.
You needed people to think viruses reliably go for specific sites. That and only that make it easy to accept what we see from molecular studies as other than common descent.
You introduced data that not all sites have the same odds of being picked for insertion. Then you went "Tah-dah!"
That looked bad.
You're still going "Tah-dah!" You've jumped the shark.
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.