Yip, yip, yip!
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)
Which article are you refering to? The one titled "Golden calf on fire?" or something to that effect?
You'll note my only comment on it concerned the properites of gold.
I have little patience to read gibberish and did not read it.
I didn't just rehash it, I added my own perspectives to it and helped explain it to an audience which has even less science background than Theobald's target audience. This seems to annoy you for some reason, though, you've harped on it several times now.
What's the matter, jealous that I write a lot of lengthy technical treatments of material, and your posts are just short snippy missives? If you're as smart as you obviously like to think you are, feel free to compose an actual argument with analysis and citations and evidence sometime, for once, instead of your constant implications and innuendo which never manage to actually present any specific material which can be checked or examined.
You have not addressed an error in part 4 of Theobald's work where he states
I haven't "addressed an error in part 4" because there isn't one.
(which you aped in what you said "are my own writings")
They are my own writings. I find your obsession with the fact that I have composed my own coverage of the subject, and your repeated implications that they're somehow less than my own words, to be odd, at the very least. There are medications for that sort of thing.
wherein it is stated: this process [retroviral integration] is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.
Retroviral integration is not random, nor fairly random.
If you want to try to claim or imply anything as stupid as the proposition that retroviral integration is non-stochastic, you are welcome to present your evidence which contradicts the actual research in this field.
More likely, however, you just want to play rhetorical word games over layman's terms such as "fairly random", in a way that dishonestly implies that retroviral insertion is somehow likely to occur at the identical locus in separate infection events, when that is very much *NOT* the case.
Do you think the conclusion that "finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry" is weakened given non-random retroviral integration?
No, I don't, because I know the behavior of the process under discussion, and your vague implications to the contrary don't change that. If you actually had findings which truly *did* undermine the shared endogenous retrovirus evidence, you would have presented it (*AND* been guaranteed prominent journal and a great deal of professional recognition).
Lacking that -- since you add nothing but innuendo and no citations or evidence of any kind which actually contradicts the material -- it's instead clear that you're just dishonestly bluffing. I don't know why you keep trying to pull this kind of BS, you *always* get caught at it.
Or does the random nature or non-randomness of the integration not effect the conclusion.
Not in the specific manner in which retroviral integration is less than 100% uniformly random, no.
A seven-count may be a much more likely outcome of a pair of rolled dice than a two-count, but that *still* doesn't mean that if you find someone rolling twenty sevens in a row, the dice aren't rigged in some way.
Yes, retroviral integration points are less than "totally" random (as Theobald openly states), but they are not so "non-random" as to make it likely that identical insertion points of matching retroviral fragments have occurred by independent events, *especially* when *most* shared ERVs match across lineages. *One* such match among hundreds of non-matching ERVs would reasonably indicate that it might just be a lucky fluke, but when the actual state is that *most* shared ERVs match and only a few exceptions show signs of being independent events (which *don't* match in location and sequence), then it's ludicrous to try to use innuendo such as yours to falsely imply that a) insertion locii are deterministic enough to make accidental matches likely and b) there isn't a lot of *additional* evidence confirming the paradigm of "matching shared ERVs marks common ancestry."
If you've got a case to make to the contrary, just MAKE it and show us the evidence, but drop the dishonest empty innuendo and the disingenuous talk about "errors" that aren't there.
Try again when you can be intellectually honest.
Quite your whining and go call somebody an "RA #125"....
;-O
"What you gonna play that on? Your pitiful, portable, picnic player? Come with Uncle Alex, and hear Screaming Angels and Devil trombones; you are invited!"
[Que up-tempo synthesized version of the "William Tell Overature" HERE]
Your picture shows the wrong end of the animal.
But his obsession with my essays is really pathological, isn't it? He seems embittered by the fact that I have read numerous sources over the years, researched the subject in depth, and then (gasp!) dared to write my own layman's introduction to the material and specifically crafted it to the current audience and included my observations on how it relates to the arguments on these threads.
He keeps trying to dismiss that as "reshash", as if it's just one step removed from direct plagiarism. It's hard to tell if he's actually so stupid as to believe that, or if he knows better and is just purposely being an a-hole because he can't actually rebut the material.
Either way, it's pathetic. But even so, it's typical AECreationist behavior. I suppose I can't blame them too much, though -- if *my* presumptions were being overwhelmed by mountains of evidence and I was unable to make a case against it, I'd probably be bitter and petulant too.
Well said. :-)
I can't tell you the mix of disappointment and amusement when I scrolled down and saw that FN1 discusses what a corollary is.
"if *my* presumptions were being overwhelmed by mountains of evidence and I was unable to make a case against it, I'd probably be bitter and petulant too."
No, you would probably just change your presumptions, something about the scientific method....
Well I didn't want to get banned. ;^)
So then, to summarize the pretty pictures and the silliness.
The Retrovirus is god! After all, it is the great "maker" of the DNA strand!!!
Okay, I think it get it now! Retrovirus "magically" gets DNA from the supernatural nether region, then breaks pieces off that create new species...
Got it!!!
"So then, to summarize the pretty pictures and the silliness.
The Retrovirus is god! After all, it is the great "maker" of the DNA strand!!!
Okay, I think it get it now! Retrovirus "magically" gets DNA from the supernatural nether region, then breaks pieces off that create new species...
Got it!!! "
That must be the single lamest response I've ever seen to serious scientific argument. Congratulations!
These religious texts look pretty nice. I noticed in carefully reading them that with all of these cute diagrams and pictures there are MOUNTAINS of ASSumptions. You know, unproven (and mostly unprovable) GUESSES!
Evolution's secular fundamentalist bible's looking like it's getting pretty well developed.
The Holy Text of evolution is definitely getting posting nicely here. Interspersed with so many "magical" used car salesman "JUST TRUST ME" ASSumptions that it's amazing!
Keep up the great work~!!!
I don't know, the world looks more than a little disorderly from where I sit. For that matter so does this website, FR. And this thread.
Probably no coincidence that the author titles his essay in biblical terms.
These religious texts look pretty nice. I noticed in carefully reading them that with all of these cute diagrams and pictures there are MOUNTAINS of ASSumptions. You know, unproven (and mostly unprovable) GUESSES!
Are you old enough to drive?
I've learned to cringe when I hear "OK, I think I get it now" from some people.
No, I don't,
Interesting. Why then was the random nature of the insertion included in the argument if it makes no difference if it is random or non-random? And, given that a statistical analysis was presented with an assertions of odds based upon the assumption of random integration, I think one must conclude that you do not understand basic math or statistics either.
And since you are backing down on the erroneous assertion that retroviral integration is random, that issue becomes moot. I have provided you with the at least one evidence for the targetted viral integration and will refer you to recent articles if you would like though, as a favor to a friend.
The Gospel Of Evolution
| You wanna see sin of the wickedest kind? Here it is! You wanna see virtue left behind? Here it is! Sodom was vice And visa-versa You wanna see where the vice is worser? Here it is! I mean, here it is! You wanna live life in the rottenest way? Here it is! Women and whiskey, night and day? Here it is! You wanna embrace the golden calf? Ankle, and thigh, and upper half? Here it is! I mean, here it is! [Refrain] Ev-o-lution Ev-o-lution The Lord don't like it much Ev-o-lution Ev-o-lution The Atheists' favorite crutch Ev-o-lution Ev-o-lution Here's what he's gonna do God'll send out fixers With text-book stickers And there's nothing you can do Will you go to heaven? Will you go to hell? Either repent, or fare thee well God will take care of Ev-o-lution Comes the end, worse than pollution Here it is! I mean, here it is! Here it is! I mean, here it is! Here it is! I mean, here it is! Amen! |
Rest asured I never dounbted or meant to imply those were anything other than your word. That was obvious.
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.