Bronze Age Goat Herders?

How many times have I heard ignorant atheists tell me that the bible was written by "bronze age goat herders", with the obvious implication that "therefore it is unreliable, and mostly ignorant junk"? Well, I can't count the times. You'd think that at least some of these poor folks would have the honesty and at least some minor competence in researching things before opening their mouths and revealing to all that they know nothing whereof they speak.  Nope. I guess that would be too much to ask for.

I guess that insults the poor atheist that parrots this kind of tripe while thinking himself "smart"?
Well sorry, but you deserve it. Get a proper education. Get informed. Learn some honesty. Stop being such a lazy bum.
Do the world a favor. Do yourself a favor. Stop embarrassing yourself in front of every informed person reading your parroted-verbatim ignorance.

Historical FACTS on some of the bible authors:

Moses wrote the 1st five books of the bible.  Moses was a prince, brought up in the Egyptian Pharaoh's courts and educated in all the knowledge of science, history, religion, philosophy, language, architecture and military strategy that the people who built the Pyramids possessed. Moses was also the commander of the Egyptian armies.
Does that sound like a bronze age goat herder to you?

If you still think so then you exemplify how ludicrous the misinformed, misguided  atheists are, the ones  who make this kind of bunk up.

Enoch was a high king over many other kings and called the scribe for his recording historical events, long before there was any such thing as a historian.

Abraham was a prince of Chaldea, the so-called cradle of civilization, having learned the knowledge of the Chaldeans and Babylonians who built ancient Babylon. Isaac and Jacob were educated in his house. He moved to Canaan and, like every other well educated prince of his time, he large herds of cattle.  Sure they had cattle. Almost EVERYBODY did back then! Ninety-five % of the population in ancient societies were agricultural.

So does that mean they were uneducated? Totally wrong. And talk about ludicrous "logic". How in heaven's name do these ill-reasoning souls equate being a cattle rancher and/or an agriculturalist with uneducated, ignorant or stupid? Not by any known logical means, that's for certain. Ergo, these kinds of atheists are website posting, nonsense and ignorance herders,  less knowledgeable than most of the biblical authors.

Moreover, EVERY Jewish child had to learn and often memorize the Torah and often the commentaries of the principle doctors of the Torah on it.  Guess what you? THAT is almost the ancient equivalent to a law school degree!

Lawrence Krauss is one of the disingenuous jokers that proffers and parrots - like a mindless robot - such naive ignorance-based statements.  Believe it or not ignorant Mr. Krauss, there were no supermarkets, grocery stores, general stores, shopping malls back then. People raised their own cattle and grew their own food.  Ever tried it? 

And look at this - these same ancient people also invented language, writing, science, history recording, architecture, medicine, developed mathematics, ...

David was a highly educated king of Israel, a brilliant military strategist and leader.

Solomon is still viewed as among the wisest and richest men that ever lived. Anyone with a competent-thinking mind can read his Proverbs and recognize deep psychological understanding of human nature and good practical wisdom.

Here's why clueless atheists so often have such problems with this. If "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom", then the rejection of the Lord is the beginning of insanity. Indeed. Atheism is little better than denial of reality. Denial of reality is part of insanity.

I continue.  Nehemiah was king Artaxerxes' cup-bearer.

"This, with the Persians, was reckoned a very honourable office (g). A son of Prexaspes, a very honourable man, was made cupbearer to Cambyses; and so it was with the Greeks and Romans (h); and the poets not only make Ganymedes to be Jupiter's cupbearer (i,but even Vulcan himself is put into this office (k).
(g) Herodot. Thalia, sive, l. 3. c. 34. Xenophon. Cyropaedia, l. 5. c. 36. (h) Vid. Athenaei Deipnosophist. l. 10. (i) Homer. Iliad. 21. ver. 234. (k) Homer. Iliad. 1. prope finem." - John Gill

Most of the Hebrew prophets were well educated priests. All priests were required a thorough education in the law.

Daniel was the first counselor and advisor to the greatest kings on earth, the Persians, the Babylonians and the Medes, far surpassing all the other advisors in knowledge and wisdom - wisdom, something the new atheists and their merry band of sheepish disciples and dupes have none of.

Luke, author of the gospel of that name and the book of Acts, was a physician and professional historian.

Paul was a respected doctor of Law and leader among the Jewish people of his time.

People like Krauss, Coyne, Dawkins, Harris et al., are in dire need of getting informed and getting out of their childishly naive and fatuous claims.
Indeed, as even atheist philosopher Michael Ruse pointed out,

"Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing"
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/scienceandthesacred/2009/08/why-i-think-the-new-atheists-are-a-bloody-disaster.html

Sadly, the gullible and those too lazy to do their homework, among the public, and who swallow the intellectual codswallop that those imposters preach like the most fervent TV evangelists out for your money, are suckers for these old baloney-brain "goat herder" lies.

Darwinism vs Facts

I was once challenged by a self-confessed atheist Darwinist in this way:

Are you holding back then?  Do you have some ground breaking evidence that shows that evolution is false?   I'm sure the the scientific community would love to hear about it.

Here is my initial response:

Definitions:
Information: For this entry we're talking about biologically meaningful information, or semantic information or more specifically still biosemiotics. Shannon information is useful in biology as well but not at the level required for ID. That is, both descriptive info and prescriptive info.

Complexity: Here ID refers to specified complexity - and this is not an IDist invention - it was first used by Leslie Orgel. Complexity alone is insufficient. A long string of random letters for example is complex but not specified. A string of letters from a Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.

And let's not forget that when talking about evolution, we are NOT talking mere of adaptation and variation within a taxonomic Family. We are referring to Darwinian Macro-evolution. Not mere micro evolution.

No one, including the most staunch young earth creationist has any problem with micro evolution. And for Darwinists reading this, no, you cannot gratuitoulsy extrapolate micro into macro. It does not work and there is absolutely no grounds for assuming it is even possible. Indeed, we have abundant evidence that says it is not possible at all. Even the late evolutionist, William Provine of Cornell University, an staunch atheist evolutionist, stated that macro is NOT an extension of micro. 

Are Atheists Rational?

 Notice that the title of this article is not “Is Atheism Rational”.  One of the things that all the new atheists claim is that they are “free thinkers”, rational, logical, science and evidenced based in having chosen atheism.  Is this true?  In fact is light years away from the truth.
Here are some facts about atheism and it’s inescapable logical implications and conclusions.
In atheism, you have no choice but to believe yourself an electrochemically animated “bag of meat” or a bag of chemicals. National Academy of Sciences, Anthony Cashmore claims that we are nothing more than a bag of chemicals.

“Materialism—the belief that nothing exists except matter, if true, means there is no place for any explanation of people and the ‘choices’ they make other than chemistry—the interactions of genes and the environment, and the random behaviour of matter.”

Cashmore thus claims that the concept of human responsibility is also invalid. According to him, the evolutionary process gave rise only to the illusion of responsibility. Indeed, he maintains,

“neither religious beliefs, nor a belief in free will, comply with the laws of the physical world.”*  –  The Lucretian swerve: The biological basis of human behavior and the criminal justice system, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(10):4499-4504, 2010;  http://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4499.full.pdf html Antony Cashmore is Robert I. Williams Prof essor of Biology at the University of Pennsylvania.

Prof. Will. Provine  said,

“There is no way that the evolutionary process … can produce a being that is truly free to make choices.”

So is evolution compatible with free will? Nope.  So is morality compatible with no free will? Nope. Cashmore wrote,

“The reality is, not only do we have no more free will than a fly or a bacterium, in actuality we have no more free will than a bowl of sugar.”

And he says that freely, of his own volition? Apparently not. Not without glaring self-contradiction. But that’s atheism’s only possibility – as bags of chemicals or meat.   Atheism is an idea that doesn’t even matter and has never done anything good in the whole history of the world, but has caused irreperable dammage and mass death.
Now here is the fatal flaw in all this atheist nonsense. Rationality depends upon free will.  Rationality means being capable of understanding and choosing between conceptual alternatives. The No Free Will claim, if true, negates that possibility completely and finally. How can you choose what idea is correct and which is not, if you are not free to choose it? Stunningly obvious.
Atheist scientist Peter Atkins says,

“Free will is merely the ability to decide, and the ability to decide is nothing other than the organised interplay of shifts of atoms.”  – Atkins, Peter, The Creation, W.H. Freeman & Co Ltd, Oxford, 1981

I wonder if Atkins thinks that he freely choose to believe that and say that? Not according to himself. His DNA did it.
Atheist Nobel laureate Francis Crick wrote,

“The Astonishing Hypothesis is that “You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.”  (p. 3) -Francis Crick (1994) The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons

The late William Provine also stated,

” Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”

So much for anyone being a free thinker and thinking for themselves.  Atheism’s super star TV evangelists shot that false idea to hell.  All this clearly implies that as bags of meat, no one ever really selects their beliefs, their own concepts based upon logical evaluation, critical thinking and personal choice. Under atheism, therefore, since free will is an illusion of the brain and we are nothing but sacks of meat, real rationality cannot even exist. Bags of meat cannot reason or rationally come to conclusions. Atheism means that you are nothing but a biological automaton, a robot, a computer that deludes itself into thinking itself rational and free while being nothing but a clump of conglomerated matter with integrated circuits giving the illusion of real volition.
No other conclusion is even possible, if atheism is true.

Atheists sometimes counter this by claiming that we have tested our brains and proved that our faculties of reason are in correspondence with reality. This too is a gross error and lack of intellectual depth. You cannot test your brain using your brain. Nor can you test all brains using brains. There is simply no way to really know that what the human mind is doing is truly related to reality.  We fall into The Matrix scenario. How do we know that we’re not all bags of flesh hooked up to machines with our brains being pumped full of illusions of a reality? We don’t. Not under atheism.
Moreover, only in deism or theism can we assume that the mind is rational, based upon it’s being made by a super intellect, as Sir Fred Hoyle called it.

Again, we are left with a serious vital choice to make. God or stupidity.

Atheism is a debilitating religious position with no foundations in logic or rational thinking – rationality cannot even exist in atheism. Another thing atheists fail to see. Meat can never be rational. Rationality itself is metaphysical, not physical.  Atoms moving in any form cannot be rational. Sad really. Just freaking sad.
The great theist philosopher – and ex-atheist – C.S. Lewis wrote,

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too -for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist -another words, that the whole of reality was senseless -I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality–namely my idea of justice–was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”

“The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words ‘true’ or ‘false'”.

“If he is honest, the materialist will have to admit that his own ideas are merely the “epiphenomenon which accompanies chemical or electrical events in a cortex which is itself the by-product of a blind evolutionary process.” If all thoughts are merely the products of non-rational causes, this includes the materialist’s own thoughts. In other words, there is no reason according to materialism for materialism itself to be regarded as true.”
-C.S. Lewis

Simple and absolutely logical. And with that, there goes the ballgame for atheists. If they remain atheists, they cannot remain logically consistent with themselves if they claim they are free thinkers or free anything else, nor truly rational beings. They are obliged to consider themselves bio-automatons with no more self-determination than a hamburger.

God and Politics?

Every time there are elections we see a lot of talk on the Internet and between people on things like who should one vote for, which political party is the best, which candidate has the best competence, and among religious folks, how the believer ought to view polictics in general, is God interested in politics, can use the scriptures to better decide which party to vote for?  etc ..
These discussions and debates are often very passionate on all sides. There are many people who say that we should not mix religion and politics including God and politics. It’s an age old adage.  So we hear a lot about the issue of mixing religion and politics. We hear about it a lot in the United States regarding their Constitution and the famous Establishment Clause, “Congress shall make no law Respecting an establishment of religion “with” … or Prohibiting the free exercise thereof ” Because of these perpetual quarrels and abuses of these terms and ideas on the issues, we hear that the church should not “interfere” in the state.

To clarify the issue I must say at the outset that there is a difference between “God and State” and “Religion and State”. Religion is the human expression of beliefs in God or not, metaphysical beliefs. The government must therefore not impose a specific religion on the nation since the people must have the right to choose freely. It is at this level that the words of Christ, “My kingdom is not of this world.” applies .

However, we must not make the mistake of saying, based on this saying, that Christ is not interested in human governments. On the contrary, the Old Testament very clearly declares his interest in the way that nations act. He is called King of the Nations. Even in the Apocalypse of John, the book of Revelation, we see the role of nations in the new earth ruled by Christ and his servants.

Assuming that those who read this article understand the subject fairly well, I will try to clarify some important points.

The Bible is the compass of the world, and not only the Christian. It is the revelation of God to humanity, not just Jews and Christians, to show us the way to God and the way of righteousness, justice and mercy in life. So it’s back to the Scriptures to find the correct views.  What does the Bible say about the subject? Does the Bible speak of it?  We do not want only human, subjective opinions versus another opinion, but we want to see if the word of God is clear on the subject.
I will start with a quote from a highly relevant key text for all that concerns God and human governments.

At one time I may threaten to tear up, break down, and destroy a nation or a kingdom.  But suppose the nation that I threatened turns away from doing wrong. Then I will change my plans about the disaster I planned to do to it.
At another time I may promise to build and plant a nation or a kingdom.  But suppose that nation does what I consider evil and doesn’t obey me. Then I will change my plans about the good that I promised to do to it.
  – Jer 18: 7-10

In it God reveals very briefly the principle by which he governs the nations on earth. The whole principle is closely related to their obedience or disobedience to the moral law. The very fact that God intervenes in the affairs of men already gives us an important clue to the question of God and the State. God is not absent from the state, he is not indifferent to the state and considers the human affairs constantly.
So right there we may not pretend that God and state should be kept separate, as if one had nothing to do with the other. The reality is that it is actually impossible to separate them completely!  Indeed, although we could believe that government should not establish a single religion as the religion of the state, imposed on all, one can not say that a government can be separated from God and views of religion either.
In the Old Testament, for example, God arranged to place a person of his choice as the head of a Nation and over and over again.  For example, Joseph was chosen by God to come to rule Egypt.  We see the many judges he raised up and established.  We see the he choose Saul to be the first king of Israel, followed by David etc. In the story of Esther we find God very involved in the fate of the Jews in a pagan nation. We see how God used Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusalem through the governor. God is seen to interfer in the Gentile (non Jewish) nations also.  For example with Cyrus that he predetermined many years before his birth, to become the king of Persia (Iran). We also see Daniel and his position of influence and governance in Babylon.
The list is long. One can even say with certainty that the Old Testament is the history of moral and political relations between God and nations, especially Israel but many others also. We read in Deut. 32: 7.8

Remember the days of old, consider the years of generation to generation: ask thy father, and he will declare to you, your elders, and they will tell thee.   When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the son of Adam, he set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the son of Israel.

We see throughout the Bible that God wants to be respected and served by nations and their leaders. In Psalm 2 we read,

Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, and for thy possession the ends of the earth;
Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; like a potter’s vessel thou shalt parts.
And now, O kings, be wise; you rulers of the earth, receive instruction:
Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling; …

In Psalm 9 we read,

Psa 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, all the nations that forget God;

King David recognized God’s authority when he said, “you have made me head of the nations;” God is interested, not only in politics. but who will be leader of a nation. And is it any wonder? Seeing that God’s purposes on earth for the well being of humanity are always at stake in politics?
Even stronger language is used by Isaiah when he said, concerning the Messiah (Christ), “and the government shall be upon his shoulder;”
In short, to say that we must respect separation of state and religion and especially with God is simply a very wrong idea! We cannot separate the them.  It is in fact impossible,  because God intervenes in the affairs of men and more than anything else in politics!
Psa 10:28 says,

“For the kingdom is the Lord’s, and he dominates among the nations.”

The nations belong to him. He is not an idle, uninterested bystander.  A normal family man is interested in and has daily involvement with his family and it is his duty. It is also so with God, indeed it is the duty of God to govern nations.
The prophet Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar

“This order is fixed by the watchers, and the decision is by the word of the holy ones: so that the living may be certain that the Most High is ruler over the kingdom of men, and gives it to any man at his pleasure, lifting up over it the lowest of men.
… your kingdom will be safe for you after it is clear to you that the heavens are ruling.
For this cause, O King, let my suggestion be pleasing to you, and let your sins be covered by righteousness and your evil-doing by mercy to the poor, so that the time of your well-being may be longer.” – Dan 4:17…

The interpretation Daniel gave Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was fulfilled and when the time of prophecy was completed seen said,

“… At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted up my eyes to heaven, and my understanding returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and I praised and honored him who lives forever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation; and all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he does according to his will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth;” – Dan 4:35

King David said,

“The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me: He who rules over men righteously, who rules in the fear of God is like the morning light when the sun shines And a morning without clouds; Shining after rain out of the earth the green. “- 2 Samuel 23

God cares passionately about human affairs and therefore to claim that we should not mix politics and religion, or more specifically God and politics, is a major mistake. It is therefore important that people probe their conscience and the scriptures and biblical principles in any decision dealing with politics, political parties and their leaders. We can not pretend that the politics is religiously neutral.  It most definitely is NOT!  Politics determines the governance of a nation and must necessarily touch its morality, its behavior and thus its fate.  It is therefore important that the people get informed as much as possible on the ideology of a political party, ideology of its leaders and their goals in government.

This means that the people must try to choose as leaders, chiefs and the party with the objectives, principles and moral ideology close as possible to those things in the Bible. The religious person, most precisely the Jew and the Christian, has a moral obligation to get informed, to follow biblical principles and not party loyalty or political leanings and not to just vote as usual or act with irresponsible complacency towards political choices and involvement.
It is therefore very ignorant of scripture and just plain foolish to talk of elections, politics and government without God and religion.

Now, does that mean we can take politics into the church to make sermons? I do not think so. Not to discuss who should vote or to present the parties and candidates involved. No more than a few words on the nature of the thing and the Christian duty to carefully examine the morals, goals etc. each party to make an informed choice by the Bible and by his conscience before God.

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 modern 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.

John Piippo: It's False That an Atheist Just Believes in One Fewer God Than a Theist Does

Good stuff that all "new atheist" fundamentalists seriously need to read.

John Pippo: It's False That an Atheist Just Believes in One Fewer God Than a Theist Does

http://www.johnpiippo.com/2014/01/philosophical-atheism-as-superstition.html

John Piippo: I Don't Believe in Fairies Either (On the Conceptual Confusion of Unlearned Atheists)

Simple, logical and effective - John Piippo: I Don't Believe in Fairies Either (On the Conceptual Confusion of Unlearned Atheists)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

A Stable Universe - In Atheism or Theism?

In my last article I discussed the "God of the gaps" accusation levied against creationists and IDists.  A "refutation" that is common all across the scope of Darwinian influenced minds.

I showed that, in fact, it is the Darwinists that use "gap" arguments, or arguments from ignorance and not the designists at all.

Now at the end of that article I quoted professor Richard Lewontin on his absolute adherence to materialism in all things "scientific".

Here is the quote again, followed by my comments on the last sentence of it:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”  – Richard Lewontin, 1997. Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997 (review of Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark).- Dr. Richard Lewontin, Geneticist, Harvard University

Lewotin makes a perfectly foolish unthinking statement at the end when he says that appealing to an omnipotent deity allows that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured.  Really?

Lewontin fails to see that this is perfectly true for atheism, not theism!

Under atheism there are no absolutes, there is no absolute truth, so no one cannot even know anything for sure -including no scientists, such as Lewontin. Now if there are no absolutes THEN it would be true that we allow that the regularities of nature may change any & every moment. The laws may dissolve, mathematics is no longer certain, nothing remains! Nothing is certain under atheism's obligatory relativism. Nothing can be known as objectively true in atheism, including atheism itself! This is standard atheist dogma and if atheism were true, then they would be right in claiming this.

However, under theism, what is the reason that the regularities may be ruptured? The only possible reason would be the will of the deity.  But then why would an intelligent creator simply screw everything he made from one day to the next?  What reason would he have?

Moreover, even if he did, would mankind ever know it? Highly unlikely, well at least not for more than a few seconds. We would almost certainly disappear in some sort of total cosmic implosion if only 1 of the "fine tuning" constants were to be radically altered by the deity. And who would be left to give a damn for humanity?


In theism, we infer through multitudes of inferences and the very state of the cosmos,  that the intelligence of the creator is infinite (just look at what he made) and that his moral nature is the very foundation of all morality.

Worse, Lewontin's statement is in fact ludicrous, since we already have ample testimony that in fact the laws of the nature are universal, stable and constant since the beginning of all human history. Simply because we have something we call "science" and it works!

Now to prove how utterly asinine atheists can get on this specific point, lets read the "expert" atheist version; one that, if true, literally turns Lewontin's inane statement upside down:

"There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago." — Bertrand Russell, The Analysis of Mind,1921, pp. 159- 60

Can you see that the truly unstable, unreliable, utterly mutable universe Lewontin imagines under a deity, is actually the highly probable state of nature if atheism were true and not at all if theism is true!?
Thank God it isn't!

Why else would Einstein consider that one of the most surprising attributes of nature to be that it is understandable?

"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility ... The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle"
-Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson, p. 462

Einstein was not an atheist by any means.
Thank God for that too.

God of the Gaps?

God of the Gaps?

Posted: October 17, 2013 in Atheism, Darwinism/Intelligent Design, Evolution, Existence of God, Logic, Philosophy, Reason, Science
Tags: argument from ignorance, darwinism, evolution of the gaps, god of the gaps

Well here we go ladies and gents.  Yet another piece of Darwinian/atheist imbecility must be exposed for what it really is.

Will this kind of thing ever end? Not until atheists finally admit that their position -its not merely a “lack” as they foolishly pretend to themselves- is void of intelligence and in fact annihilates  intelligence itself since atheism cannot have true rationality.

In atheism all rationality is the end product of completely non rational processes and of course is an “accident”.  Under atheist stupidity, rationality is just electrochemical movement in meat.  As Francis Crick himself said,

The Astonishing Hypothesis is that “You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.”  -(p. 3) -Francis Crick (1994) The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons

Atheism says that your so-called rationality, your logic, your reasoning faculties; all together is “nothing but a pack of neurons.  Well, Sir Crick has passed on to the other realm that is much more solid than this one and has been obliged to answer for his crimes against the Deity, so we can’t ask him the obvious question, “Why should we listen to what a pack of neurons is saying?”, or “How can a pack of neurons be true or false?”.
Other interesting questions like this could and should be posed to atheists as often as it takes to get the message, the logical conclusions and implications of their inane position, into their incredibly stubborn heads.
In any case, we must take a quick and dirty look at one Darwinism’s chief complaints against both creationism and Intelligent Design (these are not the same).

Often when theists or even deists point out to Darwinists that their theory cannot account for the intricacies and functional complexities found in every living thing, they will tell you that you’re committing a logical fallacy.  Specifically they claim this type of statement is a “God of the gaps argument”.  This simply means that, because you can’t explain how something occurred, you simply invoke God as the answer.  God fills in the gap where knowledge of how is.

God is used to explain what evolutionism can’t explain.  This is of course a form of “argument from ignorance”.  And believe me, Darwinians everywhere are quick to parrot their fave priests that have told them this, over and over and over.  Here I would love to start a nice discussion of how virtually every amateur and professional Darwinist in the world is little more than a parrot. They are always parroting what they were told in school, in their temples (universities), on their fave web sites, in books etc etc.

They do not tend to think well at all for themselves, so, having been forced into the standard Darwinian mantra, they simply parrot what they were told by their priests and pastors.  This is because they either cannot or will not think such things through for themselves. So, they need indoctrination and counselling from their priests to know what to believe.

Well, I would love to really get into that little delicacy, just for fun, but I don’t feel like it.
So, on to the infamous parroted “God if the gaps” accusations.

First of all, arguments of the pattern:
“Evolution cannot explain this therefore God did it” arguments, are almost never used by any informed theist and never by any of the major Intelligent Design or creationist debaters, scientists etc on this.
People like Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Douglas Marks, Jay Richards etc, do not use “gap” arguments at all.  What they really do is argue from a simplified form of “statistical mechanics” (for lack of a better term). This means that when an IDist says anything like, “no evolutionary evidence exist for this, no known evolutionary pathway exists to explain this, no known mechanism exists that can accomplish this”,  They are not saying “you can’t explain it, therefore God must have done it”.

That is simply and categorically false.

They are saying that 1) there is no evidence at all that evolution did this, but 2) there is enormous evidence that Darwinian evolution cannot do this, and there is enormous evidence that only intelligent agents can produce algorithmic, prescriptive information that is found everywhere in biological systems.  Therefore, the best explanation is not evoltuon but intelligent origin.

Very, very few creationists or IDists will simply say,  “God did it and that’s it that’s all, no need for further research”.  In recent years, I’ve never heard any of them say anything even remotely like that!  So, when highly misinformed and disingenuous Darwinian fanatics claim that this is what they’re saying, they are lying, incapable of thinking straight, seriously not listening or all of the above.

In my personal experience it is ALWAYS the last 2 options. and sometimes the first as well.
Again, what are IDists saying? Based on the principles of statistical mechanics, they’re saying that we already know that such mechanical sophistication and algorithmic information cannot arise by chance no matter how much time is allotted.  The probability of such machinery and circuitry being constructed, with the plans for making the parts and the assembly instructions for putting them together with all this being algorithmically encoded in DNA, is so astronomically small that it may as well be considered impossible.  It is in fact, statistically impossible by ANY known random or stochastic process including mutations plus selection.

So, this has nothing at all to do with “gap” arguments but is merely stating the obvious based on the laws of probability! Something Darwinian biologists tend to be uniquely inapt at using or even understanding.
Designists are not saying, “we can’t see how this happened therefore God id it” at all; on the contrary!  They are saying, “the laws of probability”, thermodynamics and physics do not allow any purposeless, unguided process to create this kind of integrated functionality.

That is a very different thing from a mere gap argument.  So in fact, they are not arguing from ignorance but from well documented knowledge!  Knowledge of proven mathematics applied to the mechanics of biological machinery.

See?

That is NOT a gap or ignorance based argument at all.  It is a solid scientific empirical method being used to calculate whether nature can even do such things. When facing the odds of events that have estimated with between 1 in 10^20 to 1 in 10^130 to even worse odds, the obvious answer is that blind evolution could not have done it, no matter how much time you allot!
Secondly, there is a humongous hypocrisy at work among the Darwinists when they foolishly choose to use this rebuttal.

Notice that Darwinists have NEVER, not even once, provided a viable mutation/selection pathway for the existence of even the smallest living things.  This means that the ONLY way they can claim that any living thing evolved is through speculation and conjecture -most of the time just wishful thinking and vivid imaginations are all they have.

For example, how does Darwinism explain the incredible integrated circuitry of vision, the eye?
They invent, yes invent, out of thin air, a story!

If you’ve seen the perfectly naive, childishly simplistic explanations given by Darwinists for the origins of sight and eyes you know what I’m talking about it.  Even the scenarios given by so-called professional scientists.  There simply are no viable, serious Darwinian pathways for vision and eyes.  None.  Not even remotely close.

Their explanation is always the same – an imaginary pathway -less than 100 steps (rotflmao)- that they think may have, could have, must have etc., been the real evolutionary one.   So how about evidence for such naive suppositions -they’re ALWAYS ridiculously naive- on how something may have happened by evolution? Nope. Don’t need any real empirical evidence.
Really? Why not?

Because they simply invoke evolution of the gaps! They do this everywhere, “evolution did it”. Oh, sorry, they use slightly different terms but the answer is always the same – evolution did it!
In other words, Darwinists are the WORST offenders of “gap”, ignorance-based arguments!  They never have any viable mutational-selection pathways to explain anything but the very very trivial!  So, without a grain of empirical evidence that really does explain how vision systems developed without a “seeing” intelligence, they simply claim -loudly and with much bombast and pompous fury against any other theory, “evolution did it!”
“Proof?”
“We don’t need proof!! We KNOW evolution did it!”
“How do you know this, without proof?”
“Because no God exists! “

Oops.  There you have it.  The cat is out of the bag.  The whole system is 99% religion based. Metaphysical Naturalism. In other words. The religion of atheism.
Don’t believe this? Well then you’re being incredibly naive and demonstrating a very profound ignorance.
Just to help you out:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”  – Richard Lewontin, 1997. Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997 (review of Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark).- Dr. Richard Lewontin, Geneticist, Harvard U.

Wow, if that isn’t clear enough, nothing is.  So, Darwinists are in fact religious adepts of Naturalism (materialism), a very very old heathen religion.
Therefore it must be illegal, in the USA, to teach Darwinism is public schools.  So why isn’t it?

Another Headache for Darwin

In 2008 scientist Vladimir ShCherbak published information his book “The Codes of Life” with a chapter entitled “The Arithmetical Origin of the Genetic Code”.  (Biosemiotics Volume 1, 2008, pp 153-185 – http://www.springerlink.com/content/t85w0h771510j187)

The discoveries covered in this are yet another wonderful refutation of Darwinism.
Of course, we know beforehand that the Darwinians will deny these clear implications, as they always do when any discovery challenges their secular humanism (a religion) based theory.  That’s because Darwinism is materialism’s origins myth.
For example shCherbak writes,

“There seems to be but one conclusion: the genetic code is itself a unique structure of arithmetical syntax. The arithmetical syntax is separated from natural events by the unbridgeable gap between the fundamental laws of nature and the abstract codes of the human mind (Barbieri, 2005). 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.”
“The zero is the supreme abstraction of arithmetic. Its use by any alphabet, including the genetic code, can be an indicator of artificiality.”

“First, a general and the most forcible argument: it has been found that the genetic code is governed directly by the arithmetical symbol of zero. This striking fact is verified simultaneously by several independent orderlinesses – logical, arithmetical, and semantical… Incidentally, such an acting zero alone might be sufficient to assume an artificial nature of the genetic code.”

Zero is indeed and abstraction, as is the decimal point.  Only minds can entertain abstractions. Nature, being mindless, cannot therefore create or use abstract data like this. Abstractions don’t exist in nature’s matter and energy.
Indeed, the very definition of the word abstract is as follows:

1. thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.
2. expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance, as justice, poverty,  and speed.
3. theoretical; not applied or practical: abstract science.
4. difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract speculations.
…
8. an idea or term considered apart from some material basis or object.
9. an abstract work of art.

Note: removed unrelated definitions (related to arts)

Abstractions are only and always conceptual, requiring a mind.  Thus Nature, DNA and life as a whole, cannot know or understand abstract concepts like zero and the decimal point.  Matter and energy alone cannot abstract.

The very obvious conclusion of the existence of abstraction being used in the genetic code is a proof – not a mere evidence – that the genetic code was created by a mind, and intelligence.
ShCherbak states this very clearly in his statement- that I repeat for emphasis, “Incidentally, such an acting zero alone might be sufficient to assume an artificial nature of the genetic code.“
An “artificial origin” is the same as “intelligently designed”.
There is no other source for abstraction but mind and only mind can understand it.

Is this thus the end of Darwinism?

Well the truth is that Darwinism died many years ago with the discovery of the genetic code itself.  How so? Code is a symbol system.  Codes do not write themselves. Codes are conventions of symbols contrived to represent something other than themselves.  Algorithms cannot create themselves. No random process can create algorithmic symbol systems. Algorithms, being instructions and how to do something – like make a blueberry pie or build car -  require a mind.
As Dr. David Abel explains,

“Not even Descriptive semantic information is achievable by inanimate physicodynamics (Pattee, 1972, 1995, 2001). Measuring initial conditions in any experiment and plugging those measurements appropriately into equations (e.g., physical “laws”) is formal, not physical. Cybernetic programming choices and mathematical manipulations are also formal.
The specific term PI originated out of a need to qualify the kind of information being addressed in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Shannon measured only probabilistic combinatorial uncertainty. Uncertainty is not information. It is widely recognized that even reduced uncertainty (“R,” poorly termed “mutual entropy”) fails to adequately describe and measure intuitive information. Intuitive information entails syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Syntax deals with symbol sequence, various symbol associations, and related arbitrary rules of grouping. Semantics deals with the meanings represented within any symbol system. Pragmatics addresses the formal function of messages conveyed using that symbol system.” – http://www.scitopics.com/Prescriptive_Information_PI.html

More information and several articles one should read to grasp the concepts discussed can be found here.
Again Abel notes,

“No one has ever observed PI flow in reverse direction from inanimate physicodynamics to the formal side of the ravine—the land of bona fide formal pragmatic “control.” The GS Principle states that selection for potential function must occur at the molecular-genetic level of nucleotide selection and sequencing, prior to organismic existence (Abel, 2009b, d).
Differential survival/reproduction of already-programmed living organisms (natural selection) is not sufficient to explain molecular evolution or life-origin (Abel, 2009b). Life must be organized into existence and managed by prescriptive information found in both genetic and epigenetic regulatory mechanisms. The environment possesses no ability to program linear, digital folding instructions into the primary structure of biosequences and biomessages.
The environment also provides no ability to generate Hamming block codes (e.g. triplet codons that preclude noise pollution through a 3-to-1 symbol representation of each amino acid) (Abel and Trevors, 2006a, 2007). The environment cannot decode or translate from one arbitrary language into another. The codon table is arbitrary and physicodynamically indeterminate. No physicochemical connection exists between resortable nucleotides, groups of nucleotides, and the amino acid that each triplet codon represents. Although instantiated into a material symbol system, the prescriptive information of genetic and epigenetic control is fundamentally formal, not physical.”

What he is saying, for those not used to the terms of reference and concepts of the laws and nature of information, is that Darwinism cannot be true because matter + energy, random mutations + “selection” (a mere filter) cannot create abstractions like codes and symbol systems.  It just doesn’t happen. No more than your rose bush can do arithmetic.  Math is abstract in itself, nature knows nothing out it.

Therefore this arithmetical nature of the genetic code, with its zero and decimal, its algorithmic information, cannot be natural. This is a defeater for Darwinian evolution – period.

The current generation of elder Darwinian fanatics will never accept these obvious facts, it counters their whole world view and makes them nervous and insecure.  That’s why the Darwinistas are so enraged, utterly out to lunch, LOUD and adamantly resistant.  They are the new inquisition. It’s about religion for them, not science, whether they confess this “sin” or not.

This was revealed by one of their own, who at least was honest enough to admit it. Richard Lewontin,

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
‘Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big truths.’ – Lewontin, R.C., The Inferiority Complex, New York Review of Books, 22 October 1981, p. 13.

Well we can take his word for it, right? Well um … if you can trust a scientist that tells you that he lies!   This is nevertheless a very strange statement. He says the materialism is absolute, and we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. But atheism has no absolutes!

The Darwinists only logical response to this is to claim panspermia, an extra-terrestrial origin for DNA.  But that only pushes the problem back one step, for then we need to ask, “How did they get here?” Now, supposing that the ETs themselves are DNA based will only leave us with the same question of the origin of life.

It will of course take a long time before these perfectly logical conclusions are accepted – perhaps the next generation of students of biology and other related domains will accept the truth. We’ll have to wait till this generation dies off.