The Devil, Extraterrestrials, and the Genesis Problem

PatriotandLiberty ^ | 2023 | Linda Kimball

[spirited irish]

One of the devil’s greatest achievements in our age of biological science and evolutionary thinking has been to convince natural science-and-evolution worshipping Westerners to believe that all that exists is the evolving universe of matter and energy (naturalism). The only problem, and it’s a really big one because unresolvable, is that though evolutionists have tried several different anti-creation models of the universe none can account for life, conscious life, and information. Additionally, recent research has shot them full of holes, leaving evolutionists with the hated Big Bang model.

[spirited irish]

ping

[spirited irish]

ping to possible interest

[Jonty30]

Ping.

Satan told just enough truth, but he told a lot of lies.
We probably understand the mechanics of what happened, but not why or anything like that.

[ganeemead]

Evolution: Categories of Disproof

A proof or disproof is a kind of a transaction. There is no such thing as absolutely proving or disproving something; there is only such a thing as proving or disproving something to SOMEBODY'S satisfaction. If the party of the second part is too thick or too ideologically committed to some other way of viewing reality, then the best proof in the world will fall flat and fail.

In the case of evolution, what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines reasoning and yet the adherents go on with it as if nothing had happened and, in fact, demand that the doctrine be taught in public schools at public expense and that no other theory of origins even ever be mentioned in public schools, and attempt to enforce all of that via political power plays and lawsuits.

At that point, it is clear enough that no disproof or combination of disproofs would ever suffice, that the doctrine is in fact unfalsifiable and that Carl popper's criteria for a pseudoscience is in fact met.

The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

• The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.
• The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)
• The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)
• The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.
• The question of irreducible complexity.
• The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.
• The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.
• The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).
• The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.
• The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...
• The question of genetic entropy.
• The obvious evidence of design in nature.
• The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.

Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

I ask you: What could be stupider than that?

Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.

Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal.

There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.

[Rockingham]

Good grief. Arguing controversial scientific propositions without properly citing specific sources is a form of intellectual malpractice.

[Wilderness Conservative]

Im curious who the flat earthtards were fooled by. The firmament business sure is funny.

[Pocketdoor]

I’m a creationist. More and more I’m seeing references of man 300 to 400 thousand years old. Like they are doubling at the black jack table.

[Terry L Smith]

Funny, the very research tool that is used in attempting to find the how and what of THE BIG BANG (CERN), is vill>fied by some folks. Being a native of 'this pale blue dot', I #o not think that we hold some form of speciality as being 'the only life in the Universe'. I have, in response To the question, 'why?', often answered, 'why not!', or, 'why do we not?'. A whole lot of things,ideas, wonderments, and confusions, can be boiled down to yes or no, is or is not, can or should not. Explorations of such will satisfy the 'the i don'xt knows' and 'the i'm not sure's'. That will, possibly, create the 'if , then ''right? For as long as 'natives of this pale blue dot' exist, there will be 'why's' , 'why not's', and the search for answers. I do not believe that 'we natives of this pale blue dot' were 'planted' here by some other 'intelligence', who has left no traces to be found of 'kilroy was here'.

[Pocketdoor]

Didn’t read the article... But I’ll try tomorrow.nite nite....

[Bratch]

[ganeemead]

Do your own research on any of the topics I mentioned...

[RoosterRedux]

Worth repeating (from the article):

The first wisdom is not of Father God but of the creative imagination of man run wild. It is,

“… actually ‘the foolishness of man’ masquerading as wisdom and propagated by man-made religions and a myriad of ‘isms’ – humanism, progressivism, materialism, consumerism, secularism, etc.”

[Wilderness Conservative]

Pretty soon the evolutionists will have man old enough to have lived with dinosaurs. Oh the irony.

[Observator]

I’m a creationist. More and more I’m seeing references of man 300 to 400 thousand years old. Like they are doubling at the black jack table.

I am as well, although I think our understanding of God's creation is only slowly getting beyond a child's level. Recently I saw some arguments that one of three things must be true: (paraphrasing here):

• We destroy ourselves in the next 100 years.
• Humanity develops the capability to create Matrix-like simulations, but opts not to, or opts to only create a small number.
• Humany develops and creates many simulations, and perhaps AI creates simulations within simulations.

The idea is that if the 3rd happens to be the case, and you can make an argument it's the most likely, then the probability that we're having this discussion in the true base reality is very low - we're much more likely some form of software in a simulation. In short - our creator may have a creator.

[exPBRrat]

The most successful lies are wrapped up in half truths.

[xenia]

Thank you for posting this. I will read the article later since I’m on my way out the door...... where to? I’m giving a talk about evolution this morning vs the design of bees !

As I am skimming down thru the comments I see a number of them that I also want to thoroughly read and digest later.

:-)

[schaef21]

Bkmk

[NewJerseyJoe]

P4L

[dfwgator]

Pretty soon the evolutionists will have man old enough to have lived with dinosaurs. Oh the irony.

Yabba Dabba Doooo!