[size="4"][/size][font="Times New Roman"][/font]

Sartrian please explain how you understand the beginning of the Big Bang.

Please explain how you think the first living cell came to be.

Please explain what you think life is.

I would also like you to explain how new information was added to the DNA of the first living cells. What was the source of the outside intelligence that programmed those trillion of new changes in life forms over the millions of years. How could nature know that creatures would need to see and begin forming eyes and sonar and electrical impuls readers and many other things needed for survival.

All life is supernatural and all living things become natural when they die. The natural sequence of all things is to move from order to disorder and to seek equilibrium. Ecolution is just the opposite and has everything moving from disorder to order.

I have alot more to say after your reply.

That is a very interesting approach Hammer (is that Thor's or MC ?)

Why would anyone feel obliged to explain the universe to you or to anyone else ?

The burden, my religious friend, is on you to prove that there is any truth to your ancient fairy tales.

Your method of intellectual bullying is both obvious and nauseating.

V.

I don't claim that I do. Would you like to rephrase you question?



Water and the atmosphere of ancient Earth (mostly Methane, Ammonia, and Nitrogen) reacted with the input of energy (lightning, most likely) to form amino acids. Amino acids, the founding blocks of proteins, did just that-- formed proteins. The proteins formed a chain of non-living, replicating information (like prions or viruses, but probably closer to RNA) and replicated. Mutations from errors in the replication process or sunlight caused the non-living protein replicator to evolve into, eventually, what we know as life.



Well, life is generally conceded to be a mixture of homeostasis, cellular organization, metabolism, growth, evolutionary adaptation, stimuli response, and reproduction.

So I suppose that's my definition too.



Incorrect assumption on multiple levels. First, the original protein information chain is generally conceded to have been RNA, not DNA. Secondly, "new information" is not added to DNA. New mutations are the result of the "shuffling" of the information already present in the DNA. Since there are billions of base pairs that make up genes, the mutation possibilities of those "shufflings" are nearly infinite.



Another incorrect assumption. There was no "outside intelligence" programming those trillions of mutations. Natural Selection, which forces poor mutations out of the evolutionary race and rewards beneficial mutations, is not intelligent, but rather, a natural mechanism that drives evolution.



Would it be expected by now for me to tell you that your assumption is faulty at best? Evolutionary adaptations are not "chosen." When a mutation occurs in progeny, and that mutation is beneficial (eyes, sonar, electric senses), then the progeny survives longer than its siblings and produces more offspring, which carry the beneficial mutation down to their own offspring.



Nope. It's only supernatural if you refuse to look at the evidence.



Faulty explanation of entropy. Entropy increases in a system, but a complex system will produce more entropy than a simple system. In simple terms, a more complex system, produced through evolution, will end up increasing the entropy of the universe more than a universe devoid of life. The only "equilibrium" for entropy is a universe in which all matter and energy have been reduced to heat-- a state that life is hastening by producing more entropy.



Well, if you have the biological knowledge to create that flu, then by the very nature of that knowledge you'll have the scientific ability to know how to create an agent to stop it. Plus, knowlege of how to reverse-engineer the Spanish Flu would allow us to control and prevent other flus-- perhaps even stop the seasonal cycle of influenza altogether.



Right. Light, like any other wave, slows down in certain mediums. I'm not arguing that. But light in a vacuum provides the "speed limit--" 299,792,458 meters per second.

But light waves themselves can travel slower than that, and do, every day. When light travels through glass, water, the air-- it's slower-moving than if it were going in a vacuum.



Nice of you to hedge those terms without knowing what they mean. By the way? Those articles you posted back up my point right above to the T.



The one article you provided is made by fundamentalist Christians. Presenting them as an accurate source is untrustworthy, due to bias.



Congratulations. Light is a wave. And like any other wave, slowing it down isn't that amazing an accomplishment. It still doesn't change the fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is the "speed limit" for the universe.



And another article written under the auspices of fundamentalist Christianity. You have to remember that people are falliable. They can (willfully or otherwise) misconstrue evidence and observations to fit their beliefs-- which is bad science.

Where did these nonliving chemicals come from (methane, ammonia, nitrogen, etc.)? Where did the lightning come from? And you want me to believe that nonliving chemicals radomly generated living cells? This sounds more like faith to me...

I see that you conveniently avoided the question regarding the origin of the Big Bang.

Caneman

V, do you want to fly an answer on the flag pole as to what started the Big Bang?

Caneman

Sure. Why not.

I think it was caused by Wotan farting after a copious meal consisting of Unicorn ribs with a side-order of leprechaun legs and a fine Chianti.

I don’t feel under any obligation to know or explain everything.
I’ll leave that to my religious brethren.

V.

LOL... so really you as an atheist live by faith.

Caneman

The accretion of our planet during its formative stages as stellar dust and elements.



The forcible separation of positive and negative ions.



Well, considering that you're made of the same elements as air, water, and methamphetamines, it's not such a strange leap.



Your question was oddly phrased. I asked for clarification.

Wow, you are a parsing machine, impressive! Let's keep following this along... This sounds like magic fairy dust, "accretion" of "stellar dust and elements". Remind me again, where did all this fairy dust come from? Where did the "positive and negative ions" come from?




A "leap", that sounds quite magical of you, sounds more like faith to me. But you would never admit to that, now would you? I didn't think so.




I didn't ask the question, I just noticed your obfuscation... so what is the origin of the Big Bang? Or are you going to give a line of convenience like "I don't feel an obligation to prove anything".

Caneman

Nebulae. And just because you're too narrow-minded to notice them, let me give you a hint.

They're the big clouds of stellar dust and elements. Astronomers have noticed a lot of them. Like the Crab Nebula, the Horsehead Nebula, the Omega Nebula, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.



Atoms that have been stripped of electrons and gain a positive charge (cations), and atoms that gain electrons, becoming negatively charged (anions). It's amazing the things they teach you in High School, Uncle Milty!



Sounds like you're willfully ignorant to me. But let me break it down for you. Billions of years ago, there were elements, much like today! In the absence of the destructive presence of an oxygen atmosphere, molecules (H2O, CH4, NH3, H2, and CO, to be specific), with the help of Mr. Lightning formed amino acids, which are the building blocks of all proteins! Eventually, the proteins formed from the animo acids coalesced into chains of reproducing information, much like the prions of today. Over time, the information on these chains mutated thanks to the energetic rays of Mr. Sunlight! These mutations would end up forming the information that would be the common ancestor of all living things! Wow, gee willikers! Isn't science neat-o?



Now see, that was phrased a lot nicer. I don't know the origin of the Big Bang. However, a lot of interesting scientists have formulated a lot of interesting theories that work according to our observations of the universe. For instance, there's the Hartle-Hawking No-Boundary Condition, the Brane Cosmology model, and the Chaotic Inflation model. All of those formulate an idea about the foundation of our universe according to observations and reasonable theorizing. When our tools for observing the universe become more advanced, I imagine that those theories will become more precise, or even replaced by a theory more complete than any of them.

The Goddidit Theory, on the other hand, relies solely on a magic sky-pixie that can never be observed and can never be quantified, and therefore, is no different than claiming that the universe exists because Santa Claus brought it in his bag of goodies. There's no observations that back that theory up, and all of its practitioners have to resort to bending evidence and observations to fit their a priori conclusion. Which is dishonest and anti-scientific at best.

So basically you have no answer as to what created nonliving chemicals, ions, and the Big Bang. There is answer, God created all of this, of course. It really isn't that complicated. And I thought you atheists were supposed to be so intelligent.

Caneman

And I thought you Creationists were supposed to be blind, biased, and prone to sticking your fingers in your ears when people actually provide evidence to back up their assertions! Oh, wait...

If you wanted to trace the origins of phenomena back, they all spring from the common ancestry of all matter, energy, and forces-- the singularity that caused the Big Bang. And I provided theories that explained that singularity-- the Hartle-Hawking No-Boundary Condition, the Brane Cosmology model, and the Chaotic Inflation model. I'm sure there's more theories than that, but those three are the ones that I'm vaguely familiar with.

And I'll repeat what I said about the Goddidit Theory, since you were too oblivious to read what I posted:

"The Goddidit Theory, on the other hand, relies solely on a magic sky-pixie that can never be observed and can never be quantified, and therefore, is no different than claiming that the universe exists because Santa Claus brought it in his bag of goodies. There's no observations that back that theory up, and all of its practitioners have to resort to bending evidence and observations to fit their a priori conclusion. Which is dishonest and anti-scientific at best."

OK, we are at a ponit of trench warfare... I see you have no real answers for me, so I will move on to the next atheist and see if they can do any better.

Caneman

I guess that's the mindset of grown adults who believe that sky-pixies made the universe. Au revoir, mon ami. Enjoy Bad Faith.

I almost forgot, your response about anti-scientific reminds me to ask you about your faith. Many atheistic arguments against the existence of God generally come down to logic and the use the scientific method, yet I have not yet heard from any atheist an acceptable explanation of where the laws of logic come from. If one is to accuse Christians of not being able to prove God logically, shouldn’t atheists be forced to show how they can even begin to use the laws of logic? What are the laws of logic in the atheist’s viewpoint? Where did they come from?

Caneman

They're self-evident rules that lead to a coherent argument unfettered by distractions, faulty logic, logical circles, and other non-factual flaws.



The rules of logic are self-evident. They apply equally and fairly to anyone making an argument-- Christians and Atheists alike. Without them, an argument descends into pointless circles of bickering, ad hominem attacks, and the breakdown of honest debate.

See, your arguments are logically unsound because they rely on a logical fallacy-- the Argument from Ignorance, or "Shifting the Burden of Proof." Since you're making the positive claim that god exists, the burden falls on you to back up your claim. You cannot back up your claim, so you end up shifting the burden on me to disprove him. Such an act is what I mentioned prior-- a logical fallacy. If you cannot prove your god exists, then you cannot make a positive claim at all. No matter your attempts at shifting the burden, it inexorably falls back to you.

Caneman: "...shouldn’t atheists be forced to show how they can even begin to use the laws of logic?"

Hi, Caneman...

Unfortunately, the general public has been dishonestly duped by the "quasi-logic" and "quasi-rationalism" contrived by the Darwinian-Evolutionary proponents and Evolutionists where the scientific method has been "manipulated" to produce their bias and desired results, results propagating the tenets of their exclusive paradigm at all costs and against the true discipline of science. This is exactly why I call the Evolutionary influence upon Modernity the "140-YEAR SCIENTIFIC DARK AGE" foisted upon us by the current "SCIENTIFIC ORTHODOXY". This is profoundly elucidated by the following Ümit Dericioglu article by Dr. Anadolu...



METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF EVOLUTIONISM

©1998 Dr. Anadolu

Ümit Dericioglu

Introduction

It is important to make a sound logical assessment of the methods used in advancing a theory. The axioms of a theory need not be self-evident. However, they should not be mutually contradictory. A good theory should explain the unexplained before, in a way which is not arbitrary and should predict unknown phenomena. The process of deduction leading to explanations and predictions should be done with sound logic devoid of contradictions and fallacies.

It should also be remembered that theories or new ideas proposed by scientists are not independent of the dominant world views or philosophies of their time.

The Underlying Philosophy

Evolutionary ideas did not start with Darwin. There were attempts before to explain how the living world came to be through some evolutionary processes. Lamarckism, the theory of inheritance of acquired characters was one such attempt. What was common among the evolutionary ideas including Darwinism was the naturalist belief which still prevails in science today. Scientists believe that every natural event has natural cause(s). Although this belief itself can never be proven true through experimental sciences, it is believed that scientific research would not be possible if we stopped asking for an explanation, by attributing it to a supernatural or metaphysical cause. In addition to the fact that an infinite regression of cause and effect is not logically possible, this naturalist presupposition is not even necessary for scientific research. Ironically, evolutionism based on naturalism can even hinder the research possibilities, as this will be shown below.

What was different in Darwinism, however, from the other evolutionary ideas was the concept of "survival of the fittest" which had begun as "survival of the strongest" and ended up as "natural selection". Interestingly almost all of men who propounded some idea of natural selection, in the first half of 19th century were British. Darwin's and Wallace's views reflected the widespread belief of their time in their country, in the progress through competition.[1]

Russian zoologist, Pyotr Kropotkin [2] who was a staunch Darwinist volunteered to serve in the military in Siberia, in order to observe the struggle for the resources among the animals for survival. What he found instead was harmony and cooperation which later he depicted in his famous book Mutual Aid. It was obvious that Darwinian picture of nature did not fit the reality.

Natural Selection

In Neo-Darwinism, the central feature of selection is the differential reproduction. Natural selection occurs at population level, not at individual level. A part of population with advantageous trait(s) which manage to survive under otherwise difficult conditions pass their genes onto their progeny. They thus render their offspring dominant in the populations of future generations.

Since the early days of Darwinism, a very serious objection has persisted: Natural selection is a tautologous concept. In other words, it means those which can survive and pass their advantageous traits which enabled them to survive to their offspring. The tautology is obvious here. The concept of natural selection does not say anything new. The most important pillar of Darwinism is logically defective!

In response to this criticism, evolutionists claim that the question is not whether natural selection is a tautology but whether it is the guiding force of evolution. In other words, does the evolution occur in a particular environment as a result of natural selection? According to Hull, a lack of reference to environment deprives the theory of its empirical content.[3] Yet the tautology is still there. Besides, the natural selection is still hardly empirical. How shall we know what advantageous or deleterious mutations an organism might develop? With what probability? Since we need to take the relationship with environment into account, how do we decide whether a certain environmental condition is fatal for one part of a population while it is not for another? From the moment we know that there is a trait for an otherwise fatal condition, the tautology is there again. Before the trait and condition come about we cannot predict them. Once they occur, there is nothing new to know.

Some evolutionists regarded the natural selection as the sole cause of evolution while some completely rejected it likening to the ill-fated phlogiston.[4] In fact, it is even worse a concept than phlogiston. Phlogiston had been eventually discredited in experiments. Natural selection, however, due to its tautological nature, can never be proven wrong.

Indeed, natural selection provides explanations or plausible speculations for everything like phlogiston did. It is a panacea to explain the order and purpose in organisms without resorting to teleology. However, it is a concept which did not contribute to science. On the contrary, with its phlogiston-like all-encompassing explanations, it has been the weakest point of Darwinism. Darwinism (or Neo-Darwinism) with a logically defective and unscientific concept such as natural selection as an important pillar has been hardly a theory. Perhaps it was a poor attempt which was hoped to pave way to a successful theory of origins some day.

Avoiding the Real Issue
Evolutionists always considered the mutations capable of providing endless combinations, a viable few of which to be selected generation after generation, thus resulting in substantial changes and novelties in organisms. However, the real scientific issue was the nature of the mutations. Were they really random? Were there limits to the changes by mutations? In other words, were the changes a possible manifestation of limited genetic potential? Actually, nobody knows if the genes can lead to endless possibilities. This was just an assumption by evolutionists. According to them, when combined with very long time and filter of natural selection genes are capable of generating many highly ordered and sophisticated systems. A cautious reader will see the fallacious reasoning here: an endless random variant generator such as genes plus a sieve as natural selection, given enough time is capable of generating any existing system. By using the same fallacious logic one can explain anything one wants. For example, the origin of life before the genes were formed can also be explained. However, this is not science, but only an assumption of evolutionist.[5]

The fallacious reasoning of evolutionists is a good example of how naturalist philosophy may lead to unscientific claims contrary to the widespread belief that science is only possible with naturalist presuppositions.

The Definition of Species

The lack of a spatio-temporally independent definition of species presents a problem in evolutionism. For example, mass is the resisting capability of matter to force in Newtonian physics. The definition is always the same, regardless of time and space in question. Since the publication of The Origin of Species the evolutionists have been speaking of the evolution of species without being able to give a clear, unproblematic definition of "species".

A very popular and widely accepted definition of species is that organisms that can interbreed are of the same species. An interesting result of this definition is no matter how similar the creatures are, they are not of the same species if they cannot interbreed. Actually this definition is related to Mayr's Founder Principle. According to this idea, if a small subset of a population is isolated from the main population for some reason, since they would represent only a small subset of the gene pool, they would start to diverge and become sexually incompatible with the main population. Indeed, there are populations which do not interbreed after a long isolation, or if they are forced to, their offspring are either sterile or genetically defective. It is said that the isolated population is on the verge of speciation. In fact, according to the definition above, they are almost new species, even if they look the same, behave the same.

However, the similarity between some creatures such as squirrels and moles, etc. in Australia and those others in other continents is at odds with Founder Principle. Evolutionists would like to explain it away by calling it "parallel evolution" which results in similar creatures under supposedly similar conditions. Unfortunately, parallel evolution contradicts Founder Principle. Aborigines who are believed to come to Australia, 30-40 thousand years ago can interbreed with Westerners. Therefore they are of the same species according to the definition. Why did such a long isolation not cause a genetic incompatibility? Unless Mayr's Founder Principle explains these problems and makes specific claims as to which species under what conditions become genetically incompatible after how long isolation in a consistent and testable way, it is merely an interpretation of a fact with the hope of explaining a process of so-called speciation.

Another problem the above definition represents is its inability to cover asexual species of our time and extinct species of the past. In case of asexual species there are no male and female individuals of the same species. Therefore the definition of interbreeding capability does not work for them. As for the extinct species of the past, how do we know if they were different from those which are similar today? Take Neanderthals, for example. Could they have interbred with modern humans? If they could, they would only be a different human race! How, then, can we conclude that some hominids represented the missing link of a different species on the way to Homo sapiens, if we are to stick to the above definition?

Form/Function - Hardware/Software

In order to make a healthy comparison between the species we need to take not only the form into account but also the function. Unfortunately the fossil record gives us snapshots of a subset of past organisms. But it does not tell us much about the internal structure and function of the organs and behavior of those creatures. Even a simple-looking change such as extending the neck of giraffe requires extensive adaptations in the body. Not only would the blood vessels extend and adapt accordingly, but the heart should also evolve strong enough to pump the blood to the brain. Unless we have a holistic approach in studying the organism, we would only see a perhaps deceptively small part of the whole picture.

Therefore it seems logically absurd to make broad statements about the history of the biological world, based on the fossil record which is a small subset of past flora and fauna. Besides, that small subset is only a part of form devoid of function.

A good example of this is the Coelacanth. It was believed to be extinct for millions of years until it turned up in the nets off the coast of Madagascar, in 1938. Because it is a lob-finned fish, evolutionists claimed (and still do) that amphibians evolved from it. In 1986, a German biologist, Hans Fricke, studied the behavior of the fish, in deep sea, using a specially designed submarine. He found that the fins enabled the Coelacanth to swim in all directions. They had nothing to do with the way the amphibians crawled.[6]

With the advent of computers and neurology, it is now known that the biological systems have a "software" part which governs their organs and behavior. For example, even if a person has a complete mouth, tongue and vocal cords, i.e. "the perfect hardware", he cannot speak if the speech center in the brain is defective. Similarly, flying and navigating capabilities of birds would not be possible, unless their brains were equipped with the appropriate "software". Evolution of the "software" in harmony with the evolution of "hardware" through random blind coincidences of natural events is impossible to explain because the probability of such a parallel development of "hardware" and "software" through random events is practically zero. Therefore, "software" part of organisms presents an insurmountable challenge to the evolutionists.

More Fallacies: Argument from Similarity, Argument from Sequence

In order to establish an ancestral relationship between two species, evolutionists look for the similarities. Logically, however, if similarity indicates relationship, then dissimilarity should indicate the otherwise.[7] Evolutionists, while freely using the similarities to claim the evolutionary relationships, ignore the dissimilarities. In other words, their logic works only for their theory, never against it!
A striking example is hemoglobin. Red cells of humans have an antigen which is indistinguishable from those of apes. But when we find the hemoglobin also in root nodules of leguminous plants, the fallacy becomes obvious.[8]

Supposing that the fossil record indicates stages from primitive (multi-cellular) creatures to more complicated ones in time, evolutionists claim that evolution is a fact. Even the ones, who admit there are serious problems with Darwinism, claim that explaining the process of evolution, i.e. Darwinism is one thing and the fact that evolution occurred is another. According to them, the fossil record undeniably points to that fact.[9]

However, this line of reasoning shows how assertions laden with belief or philosophy can be portrayed as facts. Despite the fact that the creatures can be sequenced from primitive to more sophisticated in time, it does not necessarily follow that they evolved from each other. Take the example of an imaginary human tribe which produces pots and pans. As their skill and technology advance they develop more sophisticated ones. Later, for some reason, the tribe becomes extinct and in time, their pots and pans become fossilized. Then, very evolutionist minded aliens land and dig up the fossils. Their advanced methods date the simpler ones before the sophisticated ones. Then, aliens safely conclude that the evolution of pots and pans is a fact!

The only fact the fossil record tells us is the existence of some creatures in geological ages, provided that the relative datings are accurate enough. How they came into existence, whether they were re-designed from the preceding creatures or evolved from them or some of them showed up suddenly is a completely different matter.

The Lack of Scientific Method

Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism is claimed to explain the process. Unfortunately, however, there is no unambiguous method expressed in logical or mathematical language. All of the explanations are arbitrary in nature. If the process was really known as they always claim, we would be able to make clear scientific deductions. Then, it would be possible to feed the characteristics of a species and some well defined conditions as an input to the process and learn the output. That would not have to be an imaginary species to be evolved millions of years later. But, at least, it would give us the tree of relationship of existing species and of the fossils. Then, it would be possible to even predict some yet-undiscovered species. However, Darwinism is nothing of that sort of theory. On the contrary, evolutionists prepare their taxonomical trees with evolutionary glasses and then tell us who evolved from whom!

Delayed Research Possibilities

Since evolutionists have always believed that mutations are open-ended possibilities, it never occurred to them that the genetic potential of a creature could be of a limited number of possibilities. Therefore, research to predict and test those possibilities could not be carried out. If we had a theory telling us the scope and the kinds of changes an organism could go through, it would be very fruitful. That way the breeders' practical knowledge would be generalized and enriched under the theory for all or many more species.

Another delayed research topic was the so-called vestigial organs. Evolutionists regarded them useless remnants from the evolutionary ancestors until later they were found to serve important functions in the body. Now no cautious scientist can claim that an organ is useless. Only it can be said that its purpose is not known yet.

The two cases above are simple but good examples to show how Darwinism based on naturalism can block or delay some avenues of scientific research.

Conclusion

As seen above, evolutionism suffers from many logical and methodological problems. It has a goal of explaining the origins and development of the living world. Yet the component parts of it are weak speculations which are often inconsistent and logically defective.

Naturalism and the urge to find answers for the origins and the positivist belief in science that it would provide the answers on all natural phenomena sooner or later have led scientists to areas beyond their capability. Evolutionists attempted the Herculean task of explaining the impossible, the occurrence of immensely organized hardware and very sophisticated software, the information of which was uniquely hard-coded during each regeneration. And they have ended up with speculative, self-contradicting and fallacious claims.

Evolutionism has reversed their view from a teleological paradigm to a self-ordering paradigm of natural selection. This tautological paradigm has spread to other research areas to provide explanations through almost arbitrary speculations.

Evolutionism, under the disguise of being purely scientific, has abused science in order to advance its underlying philosophy. Long ago, a man of wisdom and a reputable scientist, J. W. Dawson had warned evolutionists of this ill-fated path they have been driving science through:

"Nothing can be more interesting in a psychological point of view than to watch the manner in which some of the strongest and most subtle minds of our time exhaust their energies in the attempt to solve impenetrable mysteries, to force or pick the lack of natural secrets to which science has furnished no key." [10]

And,

"It is a great mistake here to suppose that a little knowledge is dangerous; every grain of pure truth is precious and will bear precious fruit. The danger lies in misusing the little knowledge for purposes which it cannot serve." [11]

We will perhaps never scientifically know the history of life on Earth, how it began and how it developed. Claiming that evolution is the only alternative to Biblical special creationism which is not acceptable and unscientific, is yet another fallacy. Norman Macbeth, in his Darwin Retried, calls it "best-in-field fallacy". He says:

"Is there any glory in outrunning a cripple in a foot race? Being best-in-field means nothing if the field is made up of fumblers." [12]

Marxism claimed to explain human history through a dialectic materialist economic paradigm. The paradigm was nothing but a reaction based on a materialistic philosophy against the Western Capitalism and Colonialism. The Western Capitalism and Colonialism, in turn, began in a small part of the world and in a relatively very short time span of a long human history. Then Marx and his followers extrapolated their reactionary paradigm to all of the world and all times, naming it "scientific socialism". It was an over-simplification of human history as seen through their ideological glasses.

Similarly, Darwinism made big claims about the long history and great diversity of life which is a very complex reality, by extrapolating the mentality of 19th century colonialist England to living nature and its origins. One should always receive with great caution big claims under the banner of science, modeled after some popular paradigm or philosophy of a particular era in the Western part of the world.


[b]Bibliography:

[1] Science, Ideology, and World View Essays in the History of Evolutionary Ideas, John C. Greene, University of California Press, 1981, p.49

[2] Kropotkin was also the foremost theoricist of Anarchism.

[3] Philosophy of Biological Science, David Hull, Prentice Hall, 1974, p.67

[4] "So far as we now know, not only is natural selection inevitable, not only is it an effective agency of evolution, but it is the only effective agency of evolution" Julian Huxley, quoted by Brian Leith in The Descent of Darwin, Collins, 1982, p.39, from Evolution in Action by J. Huxley, Chatto & Windus, London, 1953
"Let us make it clear from the start: selection is a word that must be removed from the vocabulary of biology if one wants to make a serious attempt at understanding the mechanism of evolution" Evolution without Selection Form and Function by Autoevolution, A. Lima de Faria, Elsevier, 1988, p.xviii, see also p.3

[5] "The neo-Darwinian concept of random variation carries with it the major fallacy that everything conceivable is possible" Ho and saunders, Beyond Neo-Darwinism, 1984 quoted in de Faria's above book on p.15

[6] Natural Creation or Natural Selection? A Complete New Theory of Evolution, John Davidson, Element, 1992, p.180

[7] The Creation-Evolution Controversy Toward A Rational Solution, R.L. Wysong, D.V.M., Inquiry Press, 1976, p.393

[8] Ibid, p.394

[9] "Evolution: myth, metaphysics, or science?" John Little, New Scientist, 4 September 1980, p.708

[10] Modern Ideas of Evolution, J.W. Dawson (1820-1899) Prodist, 1977, p.54

[11] Ibid, p.56

[12] Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Norman Macbeth, Gambit, 1971, p.77


SOURCE: http://www.wakeup.org/anadolu/08/1/evolutionism.html

Blessing in Christ Jesus...

-7

TL;DR.

Don't bombard me with useless walls of text. If you have something to say, make it short and sweet.

Whoah, lets stop right there... you have so many thoughts crowding into your consciousness its amazing that you can even breathe. You say the laws of logic are "self-evident", that sounds like magic, its just out there somewhere... For you to say that the origin of the laws of logic are self-evident doesn't prove anything. If I say to you that God is just "self-evident" you will happily throw me to the lions.

Caneman

Thank you, Seven... excellent article. There are numerous logical problems with all of the theories atheists want to pass off as fact. What amazes me is how these people choose to ignore these logical problems and totally overlook the ultimate Reality of Jesus Christ. Thanks again!

Caneman

No, they're self-evident because without those rules, there would be no debate. There's no magic there, just the glib misinterpretation of the willfully ignorant hoping to nitpick his opponent away.

(That, by the way, was an ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy. But since we're no longer debating, and you've been reduced to sticking your fingers in your ears, I felt it was perfectly all right.)



The fact that we can have debates proves they exist. Anything else you'd like to split hairs about?



Because that's a moronic claim. Show me anything in the universe that requires a god to function.

Okay how about infinity, can infinity operate without God? Not even the universe is infinite in existence.

It seems the evidence on dark matter indicates the universe will one day end with a "whimper" and fade out like smoke.

Perhaps there is no such thing as infinity in our universe as well.

Isaiah 51:6
Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

Infinite what? "Infinity" is just a descriptor for a phenomenon-- so which phenomenon are you describing as infinite?



Correct. From our knowledge of entropy, eventually all matter and energy will degenerate into heat, and time will end, due to no further increase in entropy.



About 96 percent of the universe is either Dark Matter or Dark Energy. Neither of these things is destroying the universe, mostly because the universe is mostly them.

Now, entropy, on the other hand, will eventually reduce all matter and energy into heat, but that's not the same as the universe being destroyed.



A theory suggests that when the entropy in the universe reaches a certain point, the arrow of time directed by entropy will "time travel," causing the entire universe to begin again-- creating an infinite loop.

But that's just food for thought-- I'm not expressing that idea to prove any specific point of mine.



Lovely sentiment. Too bad you'd need to provide evidence that god exists before that theory would have any validity.

how about the infinite loop thing you offered the idea that the universe can begin again and again infinitely, can an infinite looping universe exist without God?

I propose proving that an infinite looping universe to exist would prove such a universe to be God and thereby proving God to exist.

Too bad then one cannot prove the universe to exist in an infinite loop.

I didn't ask you if logic existed, you are trying to change to subject in a not so subtle way, oh grand master of the universe! The question is, where does logic come from? What is the origin of the laws of logic? Your answer basically was "it is just there"... that doesn't prove where it came from... you even describe this type of logic as "moronic"!

Caneman

Well, technically in an infinite loop, each beginning is caused by the end of a cycle-- a circle begins and ends itself. I have to remind you, though, that my comment was just a supposition designed to make you think beyond your own personal perpective.

There are dozens of ideas as to what was the causitive factor for the singularity that led to the Big Bang. However, the only theory that requires we set aside observation and logic is the "goddidit" theory. All other theories are built, at least, on observations of factors that we do know exist-- entropy, in the case of the hypothetical I presented to you.



A circle begins and ends itself. An infinitely recursive universe would prove only the universe to exist.



In the last hundred years, we've found that time is not the constant of the universe and that matter and energy are the same thing. I think we're in for some amazing discoveries in the next hundred. Will this be one of them? Perhaps. Perhaps another theory will prove more accurate. Who knows? Certainly not me.



They are the natural result of having a debate. Without them, debates could not exist. Good lack-of-a-god, you're thick.



Debates are their origins. Aristotle was the first known person to classify fallicies, but even today, failures in logic are still being classified.



I did not say that, you duplicitous liar. I have been repeating my same argument as the above to you. The laws of debate are self-evident because without them, debates could not exist. They prevent flaws in thinking, and presentations of non-arguments in defense of a topic.

Are you serious? This is the same answer you have already floated, but disguised in a different form... You are basically saying that logic originates from our ability to use it... logic is just "out there" and thats its origin... not only does this not make any sense at all, it still doesn't prove anything. So I ask again, as an atheist your entire worldview is based on logic, yet you have no explanation as to its origin... since you have no idea where it comes from how can you know that it is even correct?

Caneman

The laws of logic are the natural result of debate needing to be moderated by an arbiter of truth. Our capacity for logic, which you never asked about, you fraud, is the result of the evolution of the brain to create abstract thought.

I see that you are starting to rely on ad homs, which usually means one has exhausted their efforts. So now you tell me that the laws of logic comes from evolution? How do you know that logic evolved correctly? Saying that logic evolved still does not explain its origin... sorry, try again.

Caneman

(sigh) please no insults here. This discussion need not degenerate into name calling. I think the case of God can be explored with reason.

Ahem, now back to what you had wrote, Sartrian.



I beg to differ. I do not think an infinitely recursive universe would prove the universe to exist. It needs something more like an observer to observe the universe, like us.

If the universe existed without you or me or people or any intelligent life it would seem to me the universe would not prove to be anything let alone infinite.

Or, do you suppose the universe does not need us and to show that we are here by random chance?

I'd like to know what do you think?

You're very welcome, Caneman. I know, it totally stupefies me as well.

The problem is they NEVER QUESTION what they are "spoon fed" from the Scientific Orthodoxy, and NEVER consider other notions or explanations, NOT EVEN their OWN.

God gave me something called a "brain". I thought that since I have it I would actually use it. Interesting concept, no?

When planetologists came up with their "blockbuster" idea (the “Lunar Splash Theory”) that the Pacific Ocean exists because a small planetoid hit the molten primordial Earth causing a great depression as the expelled debris jettisoned outwardly and coalesced into the orbiting Moon (like they were there to witness this fictional event)… I laughed! I thought that with all their PhD’s this is what they come up with… you got to be kidding me. What a joke!

Because I did not accept this drivel, I did my own research… used my own brain… I did something called “critical thinking” (proponents of Evolution should try this)… and came up with a far more rational explanation. Since global myths from various cultures (Aztec, Babylonian, Greek, etc.) cited that the Moon was gravitationally “caught” by the Earth, I surmised that the Edenic Earth did not originally have a Moon at all… it arrived “after” Earth’s formation (which I determined was from the advent of a former cosmocataclysm); therefore, the Pacific Basin Depression was formed earlier and by another process from what the planetologists proposed. You would think scientists would try to examine all possible areas of knowledge instead of their mere isolated and insulated fields before they concoct a hypothesis of great embarrassment… but no.

Next I examined how planets formed, and concluded that the prevailing “Protoplanet Hypothesis” is completely wrong. This process claims that a disk of gases and dust formed around our “protostar” and this material aggregated, colliding and fusing into “planetesimals” that then collided and fused to form planets. But there is one minor problem… the disk is “spinning”. Put dirt, pebbles and rocks on a turntable and spin it. What happens? Does the material condense into compact units? The answer is a big fat NO. It flies off the turntable, spinning off in all directions. Conclusion, aggregation is wrong, and planets do not form in this way. Hence, the Protoplanet Hypothesis is wrong.

So how do planets form? The Hubble Space telescope has photographed infant star systems with their primeval gaseous disks containing perturbations of planetary bodies, so we known that part, but there are no images of how it got to that state. Yet, the Hubble also documented the birth of stars jettisoning inside the tendril-fingers ejecting from “mega-molecular clouds”…

Auh! This is it, the “mass stellar ejection process”.

What does an ejection of material produce? Answer: a “protracted ejecta-tail”.

What is in the protracted ejecta-tail? Answer: gases and plasma.

Hubble has photo imaged nearly 200 star systems and the majority indicate the largest planets are closer to the stellar centers (the opposite phenomenon of our system)… Why?

Answer: because this is the norm and ours is the exception, indicating a violent past to our system where the planets have been rearranged several time over… the largest planets in a “normal system” are closer to the stellar center because the mass in the protracted ejecta-tail is greater nearer the stellar projectile head as it ejects out of the mega-molecular cloud, and is less at the end of the protract tail… thus, the smaller solid body planets will always be located (in a “normal system”) furthest away from the star.

So as the main star coalesce its mass and establishes its orientation around the galactic center its protracted ejecta-tail rotates into a giant spiral around the star and then breaks up into plasmatic globulars (like a strand of pearls), “plasmospheres”, of “plasmomagmatic material” and gases forming a DISK (as Hubble has recorded) and begin their coalescing process “condensing” their material into PLANETS! So planets formed through “condensation” NOT “aggregation”.

Conclusion: Earth was a “plasmosphere” that “condensed” into a planet.

How does a plasmosphere work?

Answer: look at our giant plasmosphere, the Sun. It subdivides its spherical regions into 10 negatively and positively charged electromagnetic convection zones. The stellar material in the hotter positive convection zones ascends to the surface, and descends in the cooler negative convection zones. But most interestingly, each positive zone is opposite (antipodal) to a negative zone on the other side of the sphere.

So when the Earth was still in its molten state as a miniature plasmosphere it too subdivided its sphere into negative and positive convection zones of antipodally inverted-reverse relationships. The magma in the positive zones ascended to the surface, and descended in the negative zones. Crustal thickening and formation occurred in the positive zones creating “highland” (continents), and the last material to solidify was in the antipodal negative zones, thus forming a thinner crust that depressed into “lowlands” or great basins… those became the oceanic basins that eventually filled with water.

So take a transparent globe of the Earth and what do you discover?

Answer: that each “highland” (continent) is antipodal to a “lowland” (ocean).

Why does the Pacific Ocean exist?

Answer: because it is the antipodal inverted-reversal “lowland” to the gigantic African-European-Asian “highland”.

If only all those scientists with countless PhD’s would actually use their brains… and I’m just a dumb starving artist with a high school degree. Go figure.

Blessings…

-7

No, my exhaustion comes in when I have to debate the mentally challenged.



That's not what I said, you liar. I said that the capacity for abstract thought (such as logic) came from the evolution of neurological components to conceptualize such things. Like the huge size of the human neocortex.



Because, Jethro, we can form logical conclusions that make sense in regards to the thing observed. No wonder you creationists make such idiotic arguments, if this is how you think. If I say the sky is blue by observation that the sky is in fact, blue, that is a correct logical proposition.



Why?



Anthropic bias. If we didn't exist, the universe would still be here. The objectivity of the universe doesn't require human beings to run.



The universe doesn't need us. We're just the random product of a world with all the right conditions-- something that's not so amazing, considering how many billions of worlds there must be in the universe. In fact, I'd be surprised if there weren't another planet or moon in the universe that's formed life independent of us.



Irrational on multiple levels. First of all, do you have any evidence that those cultures said "gravitationally caught by the Earth?" Second of all, why would I believe that pre-telescope cultures even knew what the moon was, let alone that they knew how the moon got where it was? Third, please explain to me why the moon was composed of minerals the same age and composition as ancient Earth?



Fallacy. The Pacific Basin was caused by plate tectonics driving the continents apart from each other.



The original "dust" was microscopic particles of elements that clung together, like a snowball, not pebbles that would be huge in comparison. When this "snowball" got large enough, it collapsed under its own gravity to form a more dense protoplanet. The gravity of this new protoplanet was enough to pull in more matter.



Conclusion: You misunderstand theories and make up your own without any evidence for them.



Supply proof.



Supply proof, plz.



Unfortunately, the plasma that the sun shoots off is hydrogen and helium. While there's sizable amounts on our planet and the planets of the Solar System, they also have massive amounts of elements not found in solar ejecta. Iron, for instance, would only be found in an ancient and dying star that's run out of hydrogen and helium to fuse.



It shows. You ought to go back to school.

Silly, God confounds the s