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)
Splendid! How about a bit of the old ultraviolence, then?
If you're very wrong, you'll be punished eternally for worshipping a false god. Try a little game theory with that premise ;)
between Ichneumon & Co. I believe the groodiest of tolchocks have already been delivered.
If i'm wrong .... i'll embrace the darkness when I die... If i'm right .... i'll embrace the savior.
How about this....I don't know and when I die I may find out. Or do you have to have an answer now?
You have not addressed an error in part 4 of Theobald's work where he states (which you aped in what you said "are my own writings") 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.
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? Or does the random nature or non-randomness of the integration not effect the conclusion.
That's the choices? No third alternative, no fourth, fifth, etc.? I will grant as given that God created great whales, but some of the other things He let the earth bring forth and the waters, too. Some of the other things He let be, which is not the same as creating. It's kind of an active/passive thing. He let light be, but he made whales.
True enough...but to figure out how the islands formed an efficient scientist wouldn't simulate a random process and wait until something looking like Hawaii popped up.
True, and neither do abiogenesis researchers. They learn as much as they can about biochemical processes and then use that knowledge to gain insight into the earliest stages of the formation of life.
We are able to use observations and logic to skip the random experiment and hone in on a conceptualization of the process.
Exactly.
Climate modelers have been relatively successful at generating plausible physically realistic outcomes given realistic inputs to a complex system.
And so have biochemists.
To your knowledge has much progress be made in this way with regard to the generation of life from chemicals?
Yes, there has actually been an *explosion* of productive research in this field in the past ten years, and especially the past five years, as knowledge in several different relevant fields (information science, biochemistry, DNA sequencing, geophysics, phylogenetics, etc.) have reached the "take-off" point and come together with respect to being able to provide a real foundation for abiogenesis research. This is why the new Harvard research program on abiogenesis has been begun recently, whereas it would not have made sense even five years ago. The field has now reached the point where there are several promising lines of research which have a good chance of bearing fruit, and thus it makes sense to begin a coordinated project bringing together researchers in the relevant disciplines.
Multiple creationists have already tried to spin this new project as an act of "desperation", but they're just whistling past the graveyard. Science doesn't embark on such research projects unless it already has pretty good reasons to expect useful results. The fact that they're starting a full-scale research project indicates confidence, not nervousness.
I was about to thank you for pinging me until I choked on the muffin I was having for dinner whilst reading the article. It was a very good muffin, but I don't think my lungs appreciated it.
Mostly because of the staggering amount of evidence in favor of evolution.
If you knew anything about biology, this article could help you.
Have you found your billion year old human fossil yet?
Interesting. A verbatim of a blog which violates Godwin's rule in the original post, rather than later in a comment.
Has it become normal to just copy from other blogs and post them here?
If you knew anything about biology you'd not be wasting time on this side show.
355/113 kudos
awww, naw... not Pascal's Wager AGAIN?
That uses an artificially simplified Given set.
As a result, its set of consequences is far from comprehensive.
lemme see if I can find that old elaboration of that silly Wager...
dammit... it's buried DEEP.
I'll have to find it (or recreate it in full) one of these days.
here's a precis:
Pascal's Given
1. God IS
2. God IS NOT
A. I believe
B. I don't believe
Pascal's Consequences
1A. I go to Heaven
1B. I go to Hell
2A. I'm in error, but no harm
2B. I'm in error, but no benefit
Sounds fine, until you realize there's more than one godstory out there
Revised Given
1. God Exists
2. Bog Exists
3. Nyarlathotep Exists
4. Shiva exists
...
...
...
(infinity-n). The Great Pumpkin exists
A. I believe in Deity #1, and none of the other deities either exist or -if they do- mind all that much
B. (as above, for D2)
C. (as above, for D3)
...
...
...
(Z-inf-n). (as above, for the Great Pumpkin)
A'. I believe in D1, but D2098675 really IS, and he' gets riled easily
(etc...)
don't even ask me to make the consequence set for you: you either get the point now, or nothing I could say further will aid you in finding it.
I suppose that, in some circles, doing so passes for penetrating thought and cogent argument
Has it become normal to just copy from other blogs and post them here?
Yes. Itchyman did this in 16. I guess it is par for the course (i.e. has become the norm) on these threads.
Still, is it better to re-hash what is written by another on their blog and present it as if it is the poster's own work (as itchyman did previously) or to post the blog verbatim?
Probably the latter. The former if proper attribution is given.
I haven't read the thread or this particular article yet, so let's have some fun. I have a theory. Anything from NoDNC.com and authored by "Staff" is a thinly disguised vanity by the poster. A previous thread left that very distinct impression.
Maxwell's "demon" hypothesis. It's false.
But you approve of the original article and the posting of such.
Yeah. ME TOO! (appropriate caps used).
I had to hear about it second hand..... (/pout mode)
"Delusions of Adequacy -- one person's attempt to Disprove Evilootion and Square the Circle whilst skipping his Medication"
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.