Sunday, November 30, 2014

No Creationist Scientists with Real Credentials?

I've been told that there are no creationist scientists with real credentials so many times I wish I had a buck for every one.

The truth is quite the contrary and atheist TV evangelist shills preaching, proselytizing and indoctrinating others with this kind of spurious codswallop ought to be severely reprimanded and fired.

The truth about this is presented briefly here. It would take days and a load of space here to list every creationist scientist with earned degrees from reputable universities so this is a small sample.

Creationists developed and established the scientific method - not atheists.  No atheists were even involved. Historical fact.  Indeed, atheists, under atheist assumptions about the universe, could never have developed the method.  Why? Because atheists have no reason at all for believing in an ordered and comprehensible universe. Under atheism, the universe should be chaotic and incomprehensible. It is neither.

Bishop Robert Grosseteste, a reform-minded cleric of the 13th century, is the first man known to have explicitly spelled out the scientific method. His methodology was made world-famous by his pupil, the friar Roger Bacon. Both predicted that application of their methods would result in the systematic acquisition of knowledge--a result which followed.  Bacon especially enumerated the results, which included submarines and flying machines.

So the greatest scientists in past history, all creationists of some sort, did not believe the materialist definition of science!  How then can the atheists claim, as they ubiquitously do, that creationism or even mere intelligent design (which leaves the question of God and holy books out of the issues) will lead to the ruin of science when in fact all the great scientists that led us to where we are today were themselves creationists? Utterly ridiculous and in fact a downright evil lie.
 Modern science was born and raised in theistic world views and would have never been born in atheism.  Modern science was cradled in Christianity and it is the environment of Christianity and theism that fueled and nurtured its birth and maturing. Not atheism. http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/#anchor5343749

Atheism has never brought any good to humanity whatsoever. In fact, quite the contrary with more than 170 millions murders perpetrated by atheists under officially atheist governments in the 20th century alone.
"The founders of modern science were all bunched into a particular geographical location dominated by a Judeo-Christian world view. I'm thinking of men like Louis Aggasiz (founder of glacial science and perhaps paleontology); Charles Babbage (often said to be the creator of the computer); Francis Bacon (father of the scientific method); Sir Charles Bell (first to extensively map the brain and nervous system); Robert Boyle (father of modern chemistry); Georges Cuvier (founder of comparative anatomy and perhaps paleontology); John Dalton (father of modern atomic theory); Jean Henri Fabre (chief founder of modern entomology); John Ambrose Fleming (some call him the founder of modern electronics/inventor of the diode); James Joule (discoverer of the first law of thermodynamics); William Thomson Kelvin (perhaps the first to clearly state the second law of thermodynamics); Johannes Kepler (discoverer of the laws of planetary motion); Carolus Linnaeus (father of modern taxonomy); James Clerk Maxwell (formulator of the electromagnetic theory of light); Gregor Mendel (father of genetics); Isaac Newton (discoverer of the universal laws of gravitation); Blaise Pascal (major contributor to probability studies and hydrostatics); Louis Pasteur (formulator of the germ theory)." ... Gregor Mendel (genetics), Sir William Herschel (galactic astronomy), John Woodward (paleantology), Sir Humphrey Davy (thermokinetics), Lord John Rayleigh (dimensional analysis)....
 The great christian (ex-atheist) philosopher and author C.S. Lewis said,
"Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator." - C. S. Lewis on Mere Science  1998 First Things 86 (October, 1998): 16-18.
Atheism would never have given birth to modern science at all. It is perfectly at home with all kinds of  idiocy, superstition and irrational nonsense like "a universe from nothing".

All the people in the above list were creationists and all scientists and responsible for virtually every convenience and health benefit you enjoy today including internet, cell phones, television, radio, flight, space flight, calculus, and on and on it goes.

And yet atheist fanatics are all running around slandering and whining like perfect imbeciles against them and their followers and successors.

How about if we denied them access to everything that was invented or founded upon creationist science and inventions? No cell phones, no airplanes, no television, no radio, no computers, no penicillin, no flights to the moon, no lasers, masers or anything built on laser technology - and on and on the list goes.

The ironic thing is that all these irrational ignorant atheists these days, that think they're so smart and highly educated, are virtually all educated in schools, colleges and universities founded by creationists : Yale, Princeton, Oberlin College, Harvard, Dartmouth, McGill, Laval, Oxford, Cambridge, Cornell, and almost all the great universities of Europe and the West. Not to mention hundreds in Africa, South America and Indonesia where it is Christian missionaries that started the school systems there as well as the hospitals!

"According to 100 Years of Nobel Prize (2005) a review of Nobel prizes award between 1901 and 2000 reveals that (65.4%) of Nobel Prizes Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference (423 prize).  Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace, 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics[8] and 49.5% of all Literature awards.

The three primary divisions of Christianity are Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. between 1901 and 2000 reveals that 654 Laureates 32% have identified Protestant in its various forms (210 prize),[9] 20.3% were Christians (no information about their denominations) (133 prize),[9] (11.6%) have identified as Catholic[9] and (1.6%) have identified as Eastern Orthodox.

According to study that was done by University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998 found that 60% of Nobel prize laureates in physics from 1901 to 1990 had a Christian background.

Alfred Nobel who established the prizes in 1895, through baptism and confirmation Alfred Nobel was Lutheran and he frequented regularly the Church of Sweden Abroad.

Christians make up over 33.2% of the worlds population and have earned 65.4% of Nobel prizes."
References
    Davis & Falconer, J.J. Thomson and the Discovery of the Electron
    "The Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine 1904 Ivan Pavlov". Nobelmedia. Retrieved 2 February 2012.
    "Gov't Rejects Newspaper Story". The News 2014-05-07. Accessed 2014-05-09.
    Martin 2008, p. 30
    "Nobel Prize" (2007), in Encyclopædia Britannica, accessed 14 November 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online:
    "All Nobel Laureates". Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 2010-03-01.
    Baruch A. Shalev‏, 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (2003),Atlantic Publishers & Distributors , p.57: between 1901 and 2000 reveals that 654 Laureates belong to 28 different religion Most 65.4% have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.
    "Alfred Nobel, hans far och hans bröder". March 2013. Retrieved 9 December 2013. "(swe: Genom dop och konfirmation var Alfred Nobel lutheran -en: Alfred Nobel was through baptism and confirmation a Lutheran)"
    33.2% of 6.7 billion world population (under the section 'People') "World". CIA world facts.
    "The List: The World's Fastest-Growing Religions". foreignpolicy.com. March 2007. Retrieved 2010-01-04.
    "Major Religions Ranked by Size". Adherents.com. Retrieved 2009-05-05.
    ANALYSIS (2011-12-19). "Global Christianity". Pewforum.org. Retrieved 2012-08-17.
Take Dr. AE Wilder Smith for example - a young earth creationist - with 3 earned PhDs :
# Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941)
# Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich
# D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964)
# F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry) Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 "Golden Apple" awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc.
# Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company
# Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford
# Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages
# NATO three-star general

How's that for real credentials?

The list of theist and creationist scientists with real earned degrees is extremely long. The atheists, once again, are lying to you, and to themselves. All because of their own fanatical religious beliefs that impede them from acknowledging the facts.
 "Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." - Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin". Science Digest Special, Winter, pp. 94-96
And what of Copernicus, Galileo, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Kelvin, Faraday, Pasteur, Townes, Godel, Marconi, von Braun, ... these were all men of strong religious beliefs. They were all theists and mostly full fledged creationists!

Next time you here another ignorant atheist tell you that there are no creationist scientists, or that religion makes people dumb or that Christianity is anti-science, point them to the historical FACTS, the schools, hospitals, charities, inventions, and the scientific method itself and tell them to get informed and get a proper education in the history of science.

The atheists have done nothing but cripple the scientific method with their groundless, a priori insistence that only the natural can explain the natural. And how exactly, do they know this? They don't. That claim is a metaphysical, materialist presumption, and total bollocks. For if you cannot see outside of the material world how in the world can you predicate, with embarrassing certitude as atheists do, that there is nothing outside the material world?

Excluded ANY possibility from science is idiocy. Excluding metaphysical existences from science is nothing but a religious prejudice. We should always seek material explanations, but not where no such explanations suffice and design is the only Occam's Razor answer possible! The beginning of the universe is precisely one such case.

Creationists number among the greatest scientific minds in all history. And today's creationist scientists are very well educated in their scientific domains in major universities. Don't swallow the atheist propaganda, it's pure bull, as usual.


Saturday, April 05, 2014

The Religion of Atheism

How many times per day do atheists, worldwide, deny that atheism is a religion?  My guess is millions. Why? Because wherever there is debate on the existence of God vs atheism, you are absolutely guaranteed that sooner or later in the discussion, the word religion will be brought in and the atheists present will be eschewing all religion.  But then some deist or theist will tell them that atheism itself is a religion, having all the telltale signs.  At that point the atheists will get angry, act insulted, and arrogantly state that atheism isn’t a religion and that if atheism is a religion, then not playing tennis is a sport – or some such similar analogy (which they copy/paste parrot from their masters, the high priests of atheism). They radically deny that atheism is a religion because they despise religion per se and cannot endure to have their own beliefs called religion.

Friday, February 21, 2014

Neo Darwinism is “GONE”

Neo Darwinism is “GONE”

How many times have you heard that,
         “Evolution has been proven as much as gravity
Whenever you hear that, the first step is to ask the Darwinists: “What definition of ‘evolution’ are you referring to? Micro or Macro?”

In 99.9% of cases, they will answer something like this, “Macro evolution is merely and extension of micro evolution.”   Darwinists erroneously believe that one can gratuitously extrapolate micro evolution, which is small changes like say, variation of size of color etc. in some given species, into macro evolution which is major change that crosses taxonomic Family boundaries upward.

In case you’re not familiar with taxonomic classification it goes basically like the following diagram:



We know that some evolution takes place with the Family and  below.  But there is not a grain of evidence that it ever takes place above the Family level. Though, there may be some overlap into the Order level. Nothing above this has ever been observed and there is no evidence that either occurs and much evidence that not only does it not occur but that it cannot occur at all!  Some might say, “The fossil record!”.
The fossil record itself refutes gradualist Darwinian style evolution. See Stephen Meyer’s, “Darwin’s Doubt”.
Humans have been breeding animals etc for millennia, trying to artificially select for this or that trait in some Family like dogs or cats, horses, roses etc.  In spite of many efforts to interbreed species from different taxonomic Families, none have ever succeeded except to bring about creatures that cannot reproduce or are severely handicapped.

The point is that you cannot extrapolate micro evolution into macro evolution.  Not without proof that the extrapolation is valid. Is it? No. The basic reason is that the genome contains safety mechanisms, error detection and correction mechanisms that impede such “extravagances” if you will.

Now, every staunch creationist knows that evolution occurs within and below the Taxonomic Family level. No problem. Variation and adaptation occur all the time, and are indeed observable.

But there is not a single grain of evidence – let alone proof – that it occurs above that level; and vast evidence that it does not and cannot!

Here I will quote once of atheist Darwinists major players. Or ex-Darwinist I suppose he should be called now.

In 2008, William B. Provine, Cornell University historian of science and professor of evolutionary biology, stated that “every assertion of the evolutionary synthesis below is false“:
1. Natural selection was the primary mechanism at every level of the evolutionary process. Natural selection caused genetic adaptation . . . .
4. Evolution of phenotypic characters such as eyes and ears, etc, was a good guide to protein evolution: or, protein evolution was expected to mimic phenotypic evolution.
5. Protein evolution was a good guide to DNA sequence evolution. Even Lewontin and Hubby thought, at first, that understanding protein evolution was the key to understanding DNA evolution.
6. Recombination was far more important than mutation in evolution.
7. Macroevolution was a simple extension of microevolution.
8. Definition of “species” was clear[--]the biological species concept of Dobzhansky and Mayr.
9. Speciation was understood in principle.
10. Evolution is a process of sharing common ancestors back to the origin of life, or in other words, evolution produces a tree of life.
11. Inheritance of acquired characters was impossible in biological organisms.
12. Random genetic drift was a clear concept and invoked constantly whenever population sizes were small, including fossil organisms.
13. The evolutionary synthesis was actually a synthesis.
14. Molecular biology has stolen from paleontology all ability to construct phylogenies. –   William Provine, Random Drift and the Evolutionary Synthesis, History of Science Society HSS Abstracts.
In that single paragraph, Provine destroyed almost the whole neo Darwinian theory.  And he is an adamant atheist!
It gets better, or worse if you’re a Darwinist:
A  paper in the journal Biological Theory in 2011 stated,
“Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope.”  — David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber, “The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis,” Biological Theory, Vol. 6: 89-102 (December, 2011).
And even better still:
In 2009, Computational Biologist Eugene Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information stated in “Trends in Genetics” that there are major problems in core neo-Darwinian tenets, such as the “traditional concept of the tree of life” and the view that “natural selection is the main driving force of evolution.”
Koonin stated,
the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair” and “all major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution.” Koonin concludes, “not to mince words, the modern synthesis is gone.”  — Eugene V. Koonin, “The Origin at 150: Is a New Evolutionary Synthesis in Sight?,” Trends in Genetics, Vol. 25: 473 (2009) (internal citations omitted).
Koonin is,  Senior Investigator National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH)

The so-called Altenberg 16 said pretty much the same things.   The famous meeting at Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria in July 2008, where 16 scientists discussed expanding evolutionary thinking beyond outdated hypotheses.

If all these people say neo Darwinism (the modern synthesis)  has failed, why is that people like Dawkins, Coyne, et al. are still loudly proclaiming that it is “proved as gravity” when nothing could be further from the truth?

Either some are being deviously dishonest or they are self-deceived. I’ll opt for deviously dishonest since Dawkins’ hypocrisy is easy enough to see everywhere he goes and opens his mouth. I’m not going to give you proof of his hypocrisy here, but the facts speak for themselves concerning his record of telling the truth!

Some may wish to make reference to the old and useless, “scientific consensus” argument.
No thank you.  Science has nothing to do with consensus. If its consensus it isn’t science and if science then consensus has NOTHING to do with it.

The evidence against neo Darwinian evolution has literally gone through the roof in the past decade alone, with the advent genome sequencing through high tech advancements.

Indeed, we now have incontrovertible PROOF of intelligent design in DNA. Recently discovered in DNA is that ZERO and the DECIMAL place are encoded in it and used computationally in the genome.
Under neo Darwinian terms, you don’t.  You must explain it away; something Darwinists have always been professionals at.

To reiterate some of that previous article:  There is only one single possible source for such mathematical units represented in DNA and that is necessarily intelligence – or “artificiality” as the discoverer called it stating moreover that,
“Chemical evolution, no matter how long it took, could not possibly have stumbled on the arithmetical language and initialized the decimalization of the genetic code. Physics and chemistry can neither make such abstractions nor fit the genetic code out with them. “

Being non-material abstractions, all the zero, decimal syntax and unique summations can display an artificial nature of the genetic code. They refute traditional ideas about the stochastic origin of the genetic code.
… There is no plausible chemical logic to couple directly the triplets and the amino acids. In other words, the principles of chemistry where not the sought essence of the genetic code
…The zero is the supreme abstraction of arithmetic. Its use by any alphabet, including the genetic code, can be an indicator of artificiality.
All that means that neo Darwinism is utterly wrong. Nature knows nothing of ZEROs or Decimal places – they do not exist in nature!

There goes the ballgame for Darwinian evolution. Curiously, what shCherbak discovered is exactly what both IDists and creationists have been saying all along!

Intelligence underlies and permeates the whole genome and genetic code. 

Symbolic codes, no matter the physical medium by which they are stored to represent information, require intelligent origin.  That’s what Code is, an intelligently organized and defined suite of symbols used to represent something other than themselves, to represent information.  The information in DNA is also algorithmic – ie prescriptive, instructions.  This CANNOT arise by any mindless process.

Atheists and Darwinists have been denying (there it is again denial) this fact of life for decades.  Yet now they are backed into a fatal corner and the whole foolish fairy tale of neo Darwinian evolution is finished, or “gone” as Koonin aptly put it..

It will take many years to undo both its deeply ensconced & religiously held and legally protected “authority” and popularity and the damage it has done to science by retarding its advance.
More recently a second genetic code has been discovered imbedded in the first. Do you have any idea what that implies?

Imagine writing computer code in the C++ programming language, and knowing that it can be compiled using two different language compilers, producing two completely different programs.

Imagine speaking in English and everything you say is also perfectly legit grammar of a completely different language all at once!   That’s pretty close to what this discovery means.  Think of the difficulty involved in creating a coded information  system that is in fact two coded information systems in one.  Try, for example, creating a language wherein saying, “Hello how are you?” in one means, “Darwinism sucks big eggs” in the other.   Go ahead, think and try it;  its humanly possible but only with great intellectual effort.  Such things do not and cannot just “evolve”.

Neo Darwinism is “gone”. How long will it take before the religious establishment of secular humanism, that controls the whole public education system and most of the government and so much more in the West and in Europe, crumbles with it?

My guess is many years; painful, conflicted and possible even violent years as the Darwinian propaganda and brainwashing juggernaut slowly grinds to a rebellious halt and dies.
weekend-at-darwins

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

A Little Bit of Truthful Humor

Anyone reading this blog knows that I really hate atheism.
I tend to be very direct and critical in my rebuke of atheist stupidities.
Atheists are always very generous in providing endless examples of such stupidity, usually disguised as science or reason.  Of course the other ± 6 billion people on earth know this well.

But anyway, how about a little humor at the expense of our atheist friends?
This page will be updated from time to time as new jokes arrive.

Friday, November 22, 2013

What is Natural Selection Really?

Natural selection is the Darwinists main magic wand for the passing of life from some purely hypothetical first common ancestor, to man. By this "mechanism", the Darwinist elite claim that all life on earth has come to be. Survival of the fittest, they used to call this.  They have attributed to natural selection all the power of a deity.

Natural selection is seen as a cornerstone piece within the whole "modern synthesis" framework.

Simply put, Natural selection is the process by which biological organisms with favorable traits survive and reproduce more successfully than organisms that do not possess such traits. Conversely, organisms with deleterious traits survive and reproduce less successfully than organisms lacking any weakening traits.

Evolutionist Ernst Mayr defined natural selection as "the process by which in every generation individuals of lower fitness are removed from the population."

It is well known that natural selection, in the Darwinian sense, constitutes a tautology. It survives therefore it is fit. It is fit therefore it survives.
This is still controversial and often debated simply because the modern Darwinist does not like being told his major foundation stone for the whole of Darwinian theory is circular reasoning.  Darwinism is in fact based on several logical fallacies like this.  Another common Darwinian fallacy goes like this:

Species A is morphologically very similar to species B, therefore they are biologically related or have some evolutionary common ancestor.  Modern molecular biology and genetics has proved this wrong (like so many other standard Darwinian claims). That specific error is almost a definition of the logical fallacy called "undistributed middle".

So they, as usual, merely deny the reality of it  and go on arguing over as if debating it using this or that sophism changes anything of the truth of it.

Without going into the origin of this now ubiquitous term, I'll simply say that it was an idea spawned and developed by creationists, not atheists. Darwin took the term mostly from Edward Blyth a British zoologist who had written on the subject long before his "Origin", as had others. Indeed, according to anthropologist Loren Eiseley, Darwin appropriated the work of Edward Blyth, who wrote on natural selection and evolution in two papers published in 1835 and 1837.  From a creationist viewpoint. (Eiseley L.C., "Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth, and the Theory of Natural Selection," in "Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X," E.P. Dutton: New York, 1979, p.50)

Darwin basically took the idea changed it to his own view and "ran with with", bringing it to the very pinnacle of his theory of evolution.

It is viewed, in Darwinism, that mutations, by creating genetic diversity, supply the raw material for natural selection to work on. 

Well, let's get to the reality of what Natural selection really is.

In one single word, natural selection is  "death"!


This should be extremely obvious, but for the Darwinian mindset, most of the time, nothing logical is obvious.  Real selection is not anything being selected at all, its all about things being filtered out of the environment by death and that's all.  Death rids the "unfit" species from the world.
Selection is thus just a very banal involuntary filter.

This is easily seen by the fact that if one removes death, there would be no such thing as natural selection at all. Not in any Darwinian sense, thats for sure.

"Selection" is thus a very poor choice of words for death. Don't you think? It's almost the equivalent of the Grim Reaper.  The selection is implies choice, but nature has no mind to enable it to choose anything at all.  Some things die, that's it. And it often has nothing to do with fitness.

Again, this is not hard.

So the fact that Darwinian fundamentalists treat natural selection like some sort of wizard able to leap tall buildings with a single bound, creating all the estimated 13 million living species on earth, is rather amazing.  You may even find it amusing, and indeed it would be if not so serious and error.

By realizing the real nature of natural selection, its fairly straight forward to see why it isn't all its cracked up to be.

Here's the ultimate question: How can mutations + death be the mechanism, that creates all life on earth?