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?





Thursday, November 21, 2013

David Hume and Intelligent Design

David Hume, the famous Scottish philosopher and author that is often quoted in debates on whether or not miracles exist, atheism vs theism etc. had much to say on the issue of whether there was evidence of an Intelligent Designer behind the existence of the universe.

Hume stated, 
"Wherever I see Order, I infer from Experience that there, there hath been Design and Contrivance. And the same Principle which leads me into this Inference, when I contemplate a Building, regular and beautiful in its whole Frame and Structure; the same Principle obliges me to infer an infinitely perfect Architect, from the infinite Art and Contrivance which is display'd in the whole Fabrick of the Universe." (David Hume 1977, 120; A Letter From a Gentleman to His Friend in Edinburgh).
In the Introduction to his book The Natural History of Religion (1757), Hume stated:

"The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent Author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion."(Hume1956, 21).
In The Natural History of Religion (1757), Hume wrote:
"Were men led into the apprehension of invisible, intelligent Power by a contemplation of the works of nature, they could never possibly entertain any conception but of one single Being, who bestowed existence and order on this vast machine, and adjusted all its parts, according to one regular plan or connected system. …All things in the universe are evidently of a piece. Every thing is adjusted to everything. One design prevails throughout the whole. And this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one Author." (Hume 1956, 26).
"The order of the universe proves an omnipotent Mind." (Hume 1978; Treatise, 633n).
"Is there a system, an order, an economy of things, by which matter can preserve that perpetual agitation which seems essential to it, and yet maintain a constancy in the forms which it produces? There certainly is such an economy; for this is actually the case with the present world. The continual motion of matter, therefore, in less than infinite transpositions, must produce this economy or order; and by its very nature, that order, when once established, supports itself, for many ages, if not to eternity. But wherever matter is so poised, arranged, and adjusted, as to continue in perpetual motion, and yet preserve a constancy in the forms, its situation must, of necessity, have all the same appearance of art and contrivance which we observe at present."
Clearly Hume was a "designist".
He was definitely not an atheist by any means.

Thus, David Hume often cited by atheists and skeptics to prove that miracles do not exist, was not an atheist but an Intelligent Design promoter.  Today, he would be maligned, black-balled, ignored, mocked and dismissed outright by the whole atheist crowd.


Once again, this reveals how incompetent and foolish the so-called "New Atheists" really are.
__________________

Hume, David.  The Natural History of Religion. Ed. H. E. Root. London: A. & C. Black, 1956.

Hume, David.  "A Letter From a Gentleman to His Friend in Edinburgh," in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.(1st ed. - London, 1748), 1977.

Hume, David.  A Treatise of Human Nature. Ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge; rev. edn. P. H. Nidditch. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.