Archive for September, 2006

The Pope & Islam

Posted: September 19, 2006 in Current events, Morality

A lot of fury and verbiage is flying around since the pope’s comments concerning Islam these days.

In my view he merely spoke the historical truth, as we know it, about the “prophet” and should never have made any apology for his words. And once again mulsims have proven it to be still true!!

Again political correctness rules – even in the Vatican!

Islam has shown itself over and over again to be a dangerous, bloodthirsty religion of conversion by the sword. Convert or die is practically all we hear these days. And yet the idiotic politically correct agenda still insists that all religions are equal and Islam is not all bad – just a minority group of radical fundamentalists within it.

Minority? On the contrary! All we see in the world today are muslim demonstrations, threats, riots, and threats of slaughter, terrorism, war, abuse of women and children, cruelty, torture…..

When will the inane media makers wake up and smell the blood? Only when it becomes their own I fear.

History clearly tells us that the “prophet” was a desert bandit who pillaged, murdered, raped and tortured. Then he made a religion out of it to justify his crimes and build up a huge army of fanatics who wished to profit from the same.

That’s what history tells us whether we like it or not.

Jesus Christ receives more verbal abuse, ridicule, hatred and mockery in the world than any other “religious” leader ever. But do we see great crowds of christians out on the streets breating forth threatings and slaughter for it all? For even one small Christ abasing cartoon or comments by muslims or even the abasing words of the Quaran concerning Him? No.
Jesus, on the contrary, tells us to love our enemies, bless them that curse us and pray for them that persecute us. He says, “do as you would be done by” – the golden rule.

Which do you refer? The sword hanging over your head requiring conversion to Allah on pains of death or a free will choice – with future consequences yes – but still free? Christ offers reconciliation and peace with God on a free choice basis.

Do you want to see what the Quaran teaches? Look at these short refs:

Koran: Husbands may beat their wives. (Surah 4:34)

“Do not take the Jews and Christians for friends”
(Surah 5:51)

“fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness”
(Surah 9:123)

“fight those who do not believe in Allah”
(Surah 9:29)

“and fight them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah”
(Surah 8:39)

“fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace”
(Surah 9:14)

“Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them”
(Surah 9:30)

Just a small sample but you ought to get the idea. But the worst part is that as soon as anyone steps outside the politically correct boundaries and speaks the truth, inevitably a majority of muslims will step out and prove it!

Steve Centanni, the Fox News reporter freed overrecently by his captors in Gaza said, “We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint…”
Yet still the mass media refuses to speak the truth – all in the name of tolerance – right to the idiotic extremes of our post-modern world wherein if the truth hurts it must be squashed and it’s proponents persecuted. We must not “hurt feelings” or some other such brutally foolish notions are now more important than truth – even in the once “all powerful, infallible” Vatican!

I ask, when did one ever witness Christ apologizing for speaking the truth? Never. And yes we crucified Him for it and I have no doubts would do so again if we could! Many are still doing so verbally with no qualms or reasoning at all.

Forced religion is no religion at all.

The pope should feel no shame in having spoken the historical truth and no apologies should have been made. No apology for telling the truth, under such circumstances, should ever be made by anyone anywhere. Including any truth spoken by a muslim.

We may be mistaken sometimes when we think we are speaking the truth but are in fact unwittingly uttering false information. But no shame is ever to accepted for speaking the truth. And no apology should be made for reciting history and recognizing it’s message.

I am no fan of popery, but this situation is an outrage against freedom of expression and indeed against truth itself.

New and intersting articles at ID The Future

http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/09/you_read_that_right.html

http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/09/coyne_versus_erwin_davidson_yo.html

http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/09/design_science.html

Q: Does it matter what anyone says is the truth in this matter?

A: Not to the average Darwinian fundamentalist.

They will find a way to squirm out of the evidence as usual – now matter how many principles of logic must be broken or bypassed to do so.

The universal answer to all Darwinism’s serious problems is “selection” – the evolutionist’s magic wand.

Like Dawkins, the recipe is tyically – take the data, add a cup of quaint just-so stories, mix with a pint of poorly thought out double talk, add a billion years or 2 and Presto chango we have entirely new, fundamentally different (morphologically), species with previously unfound traits and complex, concurrent, synchronized functionalities! Mutational Concurrency is the chief problem in virtually all Darwinian path way scenarios.

Just like the faery-taled frog to prince, this molecule to human morphing is easy with time and random mutations! Only in Darwinian thought of course since no empirical evidence or proof of this ever having occurred is available. Darwinists use circular reasoning to get around this though: “It must have occurred since there is no other materialist explanation”.
Forget that most mutations are negative or neutral and that negative mutations are always detrimental and often lethal. Forget that randomness never ever produces ordered functionality in anything at all. Forget that there are known limitations to any species’ ability to adapt or morph. Forget that all the time available is still vastly insufficient for the standard macro-evo model to produce anything like a hundred million different complex life forms. Forget the fact that recent studies suggest that at current estimates of mutation rates the human race could never have evolved to our current state from molecule, given the level of bad mutations (bugs in the genetic code). Forget the fact that NO macro-evo mutational pathway from molecule to complex, reproductive life form has ever been rationally, much less empircally, demonstrated.

None of this matters. Darwinism must be true because we simply cannot allow a possible Intelligent Agent in the door. Why? Because it has deep metaphysical implications. For the adamant evolutionist neo-Darwinism must be true – no matter how much the evidence points to some super intelligence behind life – because they want it to be true – because metaphysical explanations (except the more subtle Darwinian kind) are to be ruled out from the start all the way to the finish.

This is why we now have “designoids”. A quaint invention of Dawkins to deny any possibility of intelligent design in nature. It is in reality an irrational substitute for any empirical evidence against design. Designoids – things that supposedly only “look like” real designs! Incredibly foolish when you stop to reflect on the implications of this – “appearance of deisgn but no real deisgn”?!

Proof? No. Just more “explaning away” to avoid the obvious and most simple explanation. Occams razor come to mind?

ll the evidence points to design. Otherwise why does the great Darwinist high preist have to invent designoids in the 1st place?! Isn’t it perfectly clear? If it looks designed, and fills all the criteria of deisgn detection methods, then it most likely is designed!
Humans have the ability to instinctively recognize things that stand out as design versus natural random patterns. So Dawkins’ designoids are in fact an irrational response to what we intuitively see as design by abductive reasoning.
Darwinism says, “If it looks designed it is a mere illusion since we cannot allow it to actually be designed because we don’t permit any metaphysical implications (except our own) in our materialist science.”
All too obvious for an unbiased observer.

As the apostle Paul wrote “science falsely so-called” – applies well here.

See also my articles on SETI and ID, Information in DNA etc.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_27/ai_104733223/print

An excerpt:

Biology professor alters evolution statement for recommendations; justice ends probe – News and Comment – Michael Dini, Texas Tech University

Larry TaylorThe U.S. Justice Department has dropped its investigation of a complaint that a Texas Tech University biology professor was discriminating against students who did not believe in evolution.

The department announced April 22 that it had ended its probe after Professor Michael Dini eliminated the evolution belief requirement from his recommendation policy and replaced it with a requirement that students be able to explain the theory of evolution.

The Justice Department had earlier said Dini might be discriminating against students with certain religious views because he excludes from consideration a letter of recommendation for students who will nor affirm a personal belief in human evolution.

All of this began in September of 2002 when a university student needed a letter of recommendation from a biology instructor to apply for a program at Southwestern University’s medical school. The student, a devout believer in creationism, stated he had no problem learning about evolution but had to draw the line when informed that to receive a letter of recommendation from Dini he must “truthfully and forthrightly” affirm belief in evolution. The student felt he was being discriminated against because of his belief in biblical creation.

Dini listed three criteria that must be met before receiving a letter of recommendation. The first stated that the student must have earned an “A” in at least one class taught by Dini. The second stated that the student must be known by Dini. The third (the one in question) stated that if you cannot answer the question “How do you think the human species originated?” with sincere reference to evolution, then a letter of recommendation from Dini would not be forthcoming.

…….

Reading Dini’s ridiculous conclusions on this (rest of article) is sad and would be laughable if not so serious.

Of course, macro-evo fundamentalist darweenies will find some reason to call Dini’s original practice “good”. The general public can see more clearly than that – it’s discrimination and while it is treated as religious it is not necessarily so.

Lots of non religious scientists doubt the macro-evo theory. And not on religious but on purely scientific grounds. Statistical probality methods and good old simple logic suffice to cause one to doubt that the billions of amazing complexities, with the “appearance” of design (to quote Dawkins), in the universe are the results of random mutations + the darwinists magic wand “selection”.

I doubt the discrimination will stop soon. Not till this weed of a “theory” is finally rooted up and something much better, more scientific, more logical replaces it.

It will happen.  It’s just a question of time + mutations + selection! ;-)

This post is entirely dedicated to edarrall – the commentor who persistently and obstinately claims that only 2 papers have ever been published by creationist or ID scientists.

This post answers with David Buckna’s article (2006) on the subject and shows just how blind Darwinian fundamentalist believers can be – again!

From http://www.trueorigin.org/creatpub.asp

The article:

Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?

© David Buckna. All Rights Reserved. [Last Modified: 09 March 2006]

In his book The Monkey Business (1982) paleontologist Niles Eldredge wrote that no author who published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly “has contributed a single article to any reputable scientific journal” (p.83). Apparently Eldredge couldn’t be bothered to glance at the Science Citation Index or any other major science bibliographic source.

Developmental biologist Willem J. Ouweneel, a Dutch creationist and CRSQ contributor, published a classic and widely cited paper on developmental anomalies in fruit flies (“Developmental genetics of homoeosis,” Advances in Genetics, 16 [1976], 179-248). Herpetologist Wayne Frair, a frequent CRSQ contributor, publishes his work on turtle systematics and serology in such journals as Journal of Herpetology, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Science, and Herpetologica.

In their study of creationist publishing practices (“The Elusive Scientific Basis of Creation ‘Science’,” Quarterly Review of Biology 60 (1985): 21-30), Eugenie Scott and Henry Cole surveyed the editors of 68 journals for the period from 1980-1983, looking for creationist submissions. Out of an estimated 135,000 submitted papers, Scott and Cole found only 18 that could be described “as advocating scientific creationism” (p.26).

Scott and Cole were not looking for papers like the following: In 1983, the German creationist and microbiologist Siegfried Scherer published a critique of evolutionary theories of the origin of photosynthesis entitled “Basic Functional States in the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 104 [1983]: 289-299, one of the journals Scott and Cole surveyed. Only an editor who had a complete roster of European creationists, and the insight to follow the implications of Scherer’s argument would have flagged the paper as “creationist.”

How many papers did Scott and Cole miss? Let’s look at 1984, one year past the end of their survey. Would Scott and Cole have turned up “Enzymic Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Biological Information Transfer,” by the creationist biochemist Grant Lambert (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 107 [1984]:387-403)? Lambert argues that without editing enzymes, primitive DNA replication, transcription, and translation would have been swamped by extremely high error rates. But the editing enzymes are themselves produced by DNA.

It’s a brilliant argument for design. Lambert understandably counts on some subtlety and insight from his readers, however. Lambert doesn’t “explicitly” wave his creationist banner, leaving the dilemma as a“n unresolved problem in theoretical biology” (p.401). By Scott and Cole’s criteria, such papers don’t really count. By any other reasonable criteria, however, they do.

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, a physicist working for the prestigious Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico (who is involved with the laboratory’s particle beam fusion project, concerning thermonuclear fusion energy research) is a board member of the Creation Research Society. He has about 30 published articles in mainstream technical journals from 1968 to the present. In the last eight years a lot of his work has been classified, so there has been less of it in the open literature.

His most recent unclassified publication is a multiple-author article in Review of Scientific Instruments, Vol. 63, Number 10, October 1992, pp. 5068-5071, “Comparison of experimental results and calculated detector responses for PBFAII thermal source experiments.” I understand that a more recent unclassified article will be published in the near future.

Here is just a sampling of some of his earlier articles:

“Inertial confinement fusion with light ion beams,” (Multiple-author) International Atomic Energy Agency, 13th International Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research, Washington D.C., 1-6 October 1990.

“Progress toward a superconducting opening switch,” (Principal author), Proceedings of 6th IEEE Pulsed Power Conference (Arlington, VA June 29 – July 1, 1987) pp. 279-282.

“Rimfire: a six megavolt laser-triggered gas-filled switch for PBFA II,” (Principal author),Proceedings of 5th IEEE Pulsed Power Conference (Arlington, VA June 10-12, 1985) pp. 262-2265.

“Uranium logging with prompt fission neutrons,” (Principal author) International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes, Vol. 34, Number 1, 1983, pp. 261-268.

“The 1/gamma velocity dependence of nucleon-nucleus optical potentials,” (Only author) Nuclear Physics, Vol. A182, 1972, pp. 580-592

Creationists such as Humphreys have extensive publications in mainstream journals on non-creationist topics. As mentioned previously, the article by Scott & Cole was a search for articles openly espousing creationism, which is a different matter altogether. Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published. When they attempt to do this, their articles are usually rejected. Those who are well-known to evolutionists as creationists have more difficulty even with articles which do not have obvious creationist implications.

In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had a “hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.” Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, “It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.” This admission is particularly significant since Science’s official letters policy is that they represent “the range of opinions received” (e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions). Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones.

Humphreys’ letter and Ms. Gilbert’s reply are reprinted in the book, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, by physicist Robert V. Gentry (Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2nd edition, 1988.)

On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article *“Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps” to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn’t want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn’t even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a “slight bias” exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.

The Institute for Creation Research published a laymanized version of Humphrey’s article in their Impact series [No. 233, “Bumps in the Big Bang,” November 1992]. Reference 5 of that article contains information about the Nature submission.

In the 70s and early 80s physicist Robert Gentry had several articles with very significant creationist data published in mainstream journals (Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, etc.), but found he couldn’t publish openly creationist conclusions. Gentry had discovered that granites contain microscopic coloration halos produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium. According to evolutionary theory, polonium halos should not be there. Some believe that the existence of polonium halos is scientific evidence that the Earth was created instantaneously.

When Oak Ridge National Laboratories terminated Gentry’s connection with them as a visiting professor (shortly after it became nationally known he is a creationist) the number of his articles slowed down, but he continues to publish.

Russell Humphreys said in a 1993 interview: “I’m part of a fairly large scientific community in New Mexico, and a good number of these are creationists. Many don’t actively belong to any creationist organization. Based on those proportions and knowing the membership of the Creation Research Society, it’s probably a conservative estimate that there are in the US alone around 10,000 practicing scientists who are biblical creationists.” (“Creation in the Physics Lab”, Creation Ex Nihilo 15(3):20-23).

Additional information on Dr. D. Russell Humphreys:

Dr. Humphreys was awarded his Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972, by which time he was a fully convinced creationist. For the next 6 years he worked in the High Voltage Laboratory of General Electric Company. Since 1979, he has worked for Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project. Dr. Humphreys is an adjunct professor of Geophysics and Astrophysics at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, a Board member of the Creation Research Society and is president of the Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico. He is also the author of the book “Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe,” Master Books, 1994 (ISBN 0-89051-202-7) which details his white hole cosmology theory.
One other ICR Impact article by Humphreys can be viewed at: The Earth’s Magnetic Field is Young
NOTE: A companion video for Creation’s Tiny Mystery entitled “Fingerprints of Creation,” Video Cat. No. VFINCR (34 minutes) can be ordered at http://www.ior.com/~kjc/books/
Another prominent creationist who publishes in mainstream journals is Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, professor of mathematics at the U. S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

See also the biographies of Dr Don Batten, Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Pierre Jerlström
NOTE: A companion video for Creation’s Tiny Mystery entitled “Fingerprints of Creation,” Video Cat. No. VFINCR (34 minutes) can be ordered at http://www.ior.com/~kjc/books/
Another prominent creationist who publishes in mainstream journals is Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, professor of mathematics at the U. S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

See also the biographies of Dr Don Batten, Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Pierre Jerlström for examples of mainstream scientific publications by full-time Answers in Genesis Research Scientists.

Postscript: If you are a creationist who publishes in mainstream journals, and would like to be included in further updates of this article, please send your curriculum vitae to:

David Buckna

A lot more could be said about this whole subject of course. I’ll post info as I’m able so stay tuned.

Two good articles from Cornelius Hunter on why evolutionist’s pretense to Darwinisms’ being metaphysically neutral is a myth.http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/06/why_evolutionists_cant_be_neut.html
http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/07/fear_and_loathing_in_dover.htmlThis seems to be a very difficult subject for people to understand and accept.

Of course, they’ve been brainwashed into believing that Darwinism is religiously neutral and can co-exist with any religion. This is because it is claimed to be purely natural science with no meta-physics involved. Hunter aptly points out that this is untrue.

Just because their religious beliefs are the opposite of others doesn’t make them any less religious beliefs nontheless.

This pretense to neutrality is also socially harmful and hard-line evolutionist propagandists, like Eugenie Scott and the NCSE propaganda web site and organization, know this. That’s why she can send little advisory notes to others telling them to keep their metaphysics in line when propagating their religion of Darwinism. If there are no metaphysical implications or basis in Darwinism why would she feel compelled to do so?

The answer is obvious. Darwinism is deeply rooted in the ancient religion of naturalism with methodological naturalism as it’s “science”.

As Hunter says, “This is why evolutionists are not good at making theory-neutral evaluations of the empirical evidence. For evolutionists, evolution is not something that might be wrong. It must be true.”

The Darwinist high priests have long pulled the wool over the eyes of the judicial and academic communities in this. Isn’t it time they were exposed for the deceivers that they are?

Darwin himself recognized and stated that his theory was not real science. Strange that it is so promoted as such these days by those who claim that Design is not science!!

I’m very glad someone is publishing comments like this. Thank you Mr. Hunter.

ATP Synthase

Posted: September 5, 2006 in Science
Tags: , , , ,

Image : http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/atpmushroom.gif
Movie : http://www.bioc.aecom.yu.edu/labs/girvlab/Bioenergetics/ATPsynthase.mov

A critically important macromolecule—arguably “second in importance only to DNA”—is ATP. ATP is an abbreviation for adenosine triphosphate, a complex molecule that contains the nucleoside adenosine and a tail consisting of three phosphates. As far as known, all organisms from the simplest bacteria to humans use ATP as their primary energy currency. In each of the approximately one hundred trillion human cells is about one billion ATP molecules.
Without ATP, life as we understand it could not exist. All the books in the largest library in the world may not be able to contain the information needed to understand and construct the estimated 100,000 complex macromolecule machines used in humans. All the books in the largest library in the world may not be able to contain the information needed to understand and construct the estimated 100,000 complex macromolecule machines used in humans. Anything less than an entire ATP molecule will not function and a manufacturing plant which is less then complete cannot produce a functioning ATP. Dr. Jerry Bergman

New X-ray crystallographic studies have revealed the working of adenosine triphosphate synthase, the basis of energy transport in all living organisms.

ATP captures the chemical energy released by the combustion of nutrients and transfers it to reactions that require energy, e.g. the building up of cell components, muscle contraction, transmission of nerve messages and many other functions. ATP synthase molecules located within mitochondria stick out on the mitochondria, attached to their inner surfaces in mushroom-like clusters. When food is broken down or metabolized for energy, the last stages of the process occur within the mitochondria.

The ATP synthase molecule, has two parts. Recently, scientists in Japan discovered that one part, the “mushroom stem,” apparently rotates within the “mushroom cap.” Last year, a Nobel prize was awarded to the researcher (Paul Boyer, Ph.D., UCLA) who suggested that forming ATP was somehow tied to this rotation, and the prize was shared with another researcher (John Walker, Ph.D., Medical Research Council Laboratory, Cambridge, England) whose team laid out one of two possible structures for the “cap,” which is believed to be short-lived.

In new research, researchers at Johns Hopkins University determined the other structure, believed to be the most common form, in living organisms. The ATP synthase “mushroom cap,” they found, contains three identical areas, arranged like a coil, where ATP is made. Each area is occupied with a different stage in ATP production.

As the “stem” rotates, it creates a powerful internal shifting in each of the three coiled sections within the cap. This shifting provides the energy to cause chemical changes. At one site, the “ingredients” for ATP come together. At another site, they assemble as ATP, and at the third site, the rotation readies the fully formed ATP to pop off the synthase molecule, for use throughout the cell.

A team led by L. Mario Amzel, Ph.D., and Peter Pedersen, Ph.D. used X-ray crystallography to reveal the molecular structure of adenosine triphosphate synthase. Inside, the molecule whirls around several times a second while it triggers production of ATP.

“It’s one of the most complex molecules ever revealed, almost six times larger than the blood molecule hemoglobin,” says Pedersen. It’s also, the researchers agree, one of the tiniest and most powerful motors ever identified.

The researchers captured the image of the ATP synthase cap while all of its sites were in some stage of making ATP, which is essential for the constant recycling of its precursors. Without this recycling, Pedersen says, “people would have to produce more than half their body weight in ATP every day to meet their energy needs.” http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/atpmechanism.htm

So, according to neo-Darwinism, this thing just happened by an unknown series of random mutations + selection?

Watch the movie – it could easily fit into a mechanical engineering class. Genius beyond genius is what is witnessed for any unprejudiced mind!

Could this machine have been evolved from random mutations over time? Suppose this one single example actually did come from such a random process by a billionth of a billionth of a chance. This does not help at all. Recent experiments in yeast have yielded the discovery 247 such nano machines in yeast alone.

Believing in one such event occurring by chance is one thing; believing that millions of such events occurred randomly all over the planet is a whole other story. It is in fact a stastical nightmare, with impossibly huge odds against it.

There are more than likely millions of such machines, working together for a clear purpose in concurrent processes. DNA is a recent discovery in historical time and we know very little about it and the world as of yet. We are just starting to discover just how incredibly complex biological nature actually is compared to Darwin’s time when the single cell was thought to be just a simple glob of protoplasm. One thing is sure – the more we learn the more complex and organized it proves to be.

Anything that requires concurrency in processing to function cannot be the results of randomness. True randomness does not produce functional concurrency.

To suppose that concurrent processing as seen in bio-nano machines developped from random mutations is folly. It ain’t gonna happen. Why not? Because all the 100′s if not 1000′s, if not millions of mutations necessary to arrive at concurrency in functional biological processes require the same, parallel concurrency in the mutations. Mutations do not occur concurrently with any degree of mutual, functional correspondance or dependance.

It’s like imagining an organic computer coming into existence by itself with all the necessary functional parts growing in cooperation – yet without any guiding blueprint as to what the goal is, what the form or function should be, how the end product will look and work or anything of the kind.

Darwinism always assumes titanic concurrent leaps and bounds while ignoring the technical difficulties involved in parallel processing. Organic machines that cooperate with each other in a common goal simply cannot happen without intelligence.

In the evo vs creation debate, one is often told that random mutations + selection are responsible for the creation of all life forms on earth. Genetic mutations are supposed to bring about novel features and entirely new morphologies. Simple life forms are claimed to be the root of all complex life forms. We are confidently told as fact, that macro-evolution is literally the “molecule to man” formula that Darwin imagined.

Of course this is all pure nonsense. As Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel laureate for the discovery of DNA realized, there is not enough time in earth’s history for macro-evolution to have brought about the existence of so many millions of life forms, complex and highly specified, as we see them today.

This is at least partly why, being an atheist, he wrote the book Life Itself. In this 1981 book, Crick spends the first half of the book explaining why life could not originate on our planet —and then he proceeds to suggest that it came from outer space on rockets! Commonly called panspermia, this theory takes the sublime and brings it to the ridiculous.

The point is that Crick himself could not believe in Darwinism as commonly presented! He needed to find some other source of life. Some other source that could explain the abundance of complex life forms on earth — without God. Of course. Anything but admitting to a Supreme being Creator!!

Dr. Royal Truman (Ph.D., specializing in organic chemistry) notes:

Suppose our body is lacking the CFTR gene (or it is not yet functional), which produces a trans-membrane protein which regulates chloride ion transport across the cell membrane. Or suppose that it is missing the RB gene on the 13th chromosome, whose job it is to identify abnormal tumor growth, especially in a child’s rapidly growing retina, and kill such tumors. If one tiny piece of the puzzle is missing all the other thousands of functional genes become worthless, since the organism cannot survive.How sensitive is our human copy machine to error? The CFTP gene has 250,000 base pairs. Over 200 mutations have been described which lead to cystic fibrosis (CF). The most common mutation, -F508 at position 508 on the peptide chain involves the deletion of three nucleotides. Three out of 250,000 nucleotides are not copied correctly and the gene cannot function! It is simply not correct to pretend that nature offers endless degrees of freedom to monkey around with the highly interdependent and very sensitive machinery of cell duplication. Furthermore, as discussed above, time is the greatest enemy for evolutionary theory, since most mutations are recessive and for the time being non-lethal. These accumulate from generation to generation and increase the genetic burden.Mutations + selection simply doesn’t cut it. Selection is always the “magic wand” of Darwinism. Whatever the facts of mutations are, it is conveniently posited that selection can creatively overcome them. As though selection were natures’ mind, working towards a known goal called “fitness”. Nature has no such mind. It is, in itself, blind and thoughtless, without purpose and without foresight.

Darwinism can’t work as a viable explanation of life on earth. It is well known that most mutations are either neutral (no benefit, no detriment) or harmful to the organism. In fact, most mutations are “bugs” or errors in the genetic code, not enhancements. Given this fact and considering that it is literally impossible to formulate a logical, feasible mutational pathway from molecule to man, it is indeed astounding that anyone could have ever believed Darwinismsm in the 1st place.

Of course, Darwin knew little of these details in his time so we mustn’t be too harsh on him. He himself knew that his “speculations” were not real science. “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” – Charles Darwin, In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology.

Truman’s paper on the problem of Information for evolutionists is an excellent basis, all by itself, for refuting Darwinism. http://trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp

A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion: by Randy Thornhill,Craig T. Palmer.

A book that explains rape from an purely darwinist biological point of view – and claims there is no other point of view.

The authors explain rape as an evolutionary, sexual reproductive, adaptation in human males. They also claim that it “is not a debatable issue”, since evolution theory says that this is what rape actually is – an adaptive behavioral pattern based on bio-chemical interactions in the male system and selection pressures.

Just survival of the fittest. The greatest possible spread of one’s sperm into the gene pool for guaranteed progenity and sexual satisfaction.

IMO, They are simply being honest and going to the logical conclusions of the theory, as far as the “survival of the fittest”, most “reproductive”, “adaptive behavior” aspects go. The old Alpha male thing applied to humans in a rather brainless way.

Greatly criticized of course, even by other (less honest) darwinist fundamentalists.

Darwinian evo has no foundations for any objective moral values.
If rape is a biological function developed by natural selection and an adaptation for the “fittest”, then no one is really responsible for rape are they? They have basically taken rape out of the domain of crime and put it into the domain of biological adaptation.

If selfishness and specifically sexual selfishness is a function of biological evolution in men then no one can possibly be responsible for it, nor control it completely. I don’t really see how any traditional Darwinist could think otherwise than they do. Certainly not atheist darwinists.

I would not waste the price of the purchase on such trash to promote the views and wallets of such inane authors.

It must have been defects in their genes that forced them to write this book!! An action accomplished under strong selective pressures to survival, alpha-male status, social advantage for the spread of their own seed to as many women as possible to guarantee successful progenity. Right? Must be so since that’s what their theory pretends.

If you look at the deluge of books hitting the market that explain everything from a naturalistic evo point of view this has to be a meme. ;-) — unfortunately a very dangerous one for the whole world.

Just check the titles :

  • Evolutionary Medicine
  • The Theory of Options: A New Theory of the Evolution of Human Behavior
  • Why We Lie: The Evolutionary Roots of Deception and the Unconscious Mind
  • Genes on the Couch: Explorations in Evolutionary Psychology – Abuse and neglect of children in the evolutionary perspective
  • A Natural History of Human Emotions – We learn that primitive fear served as the engine of religious belief
  • Darwin and International Relations: On the Evolutionary Origins of War and Ethnic Conflict
  • Why Sex Matters: A Darwinian Look at Human Behavior
  • The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture
  • Born That Way: Genes, Behavior, Personality
  • Evolution and Ethics: Human Morality in Biological and Religious Perspective
  • Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction?
  • Second Nature: Economic Origins of Human Evolution
  • The Abusive Personality: Violence and Control in Intimate Relationships – the behavior’s evolutionary function
  • Evolutionary Psychology, Public Policy, and Personal Decisions
  • Economics As an Evolutionary Science

This is just a tiny sample of the kind of “evolutionary” thought books out there. Everything is now being described as evolutionary behavior or function. It appears every Darwinist and his monkey are jumping on the bandwagon for the get rich quick schemes of writing pure garbage pandered off on the public as scientific realities. I’m just about ready to write a new book myself : “The Evolutionary Basis of Underwear”; should be a best seller. [:D]

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that when you get through it all, humanity ends up exactly where Darwinian fundamentalists have always said we are — mere animal organism with no free will, no purpose other than self, no guilt, no heroism (see NY Times evo explanation for 911 heorism) or merit — just hormones, genes and chemicals at work in a living organism that make it do whatever it does. ie. your personality, your choices, your feelings, desires and emotions are of no import except as survival adaptations and you have nothing to say about who you are.

If all “bad” behavior is purely biologically rooted at the very source, then no human action is ever immoral or wrong. In fact, neither is it ever inherently “good” — applies both ways right! As the NY Times evos did – they called the beautiful heroism of the FDNY and others at 911 – evolutionary adaptations to the environment and no heroism at all!! (Tell that to the guys that risked their lives eh!) It’s just what they inevitably HAD to do because their bio makeup dictates their actions and thoughts, and the illusion of will.

These people are implying that the whole gambit of human life, just like yourself, is mere organic substance acting the way bio makeup says it must — including writing asinine books. Your beliefs are not really your beliefs either. It’s just memes, social pressure, cultural stimulis, behavioral conditioning. Not a chosen belief at all.

Goodbye Law and order if Darwinists continue to rule the education and justice systems.
Guns in school? Social adaptation for survival.
Violence on the streets? Same thing – the asphalt jungle.
No one is responsible for anything they do — you’re “Born that Way” – it’s all in the genes.
You don’t react to this forum because of thought, reason and choice – your genes make you do it. Therefore, you really don’t HAVE an opinion; you just think you do. You have an “Adapted Mind”.

As evidence: “Perhaps most troubling of all, Darwin’s theory of evolution tells us that life existed for billions of years before us, that humans are not the products of special creation and that life has no inherent meaning or purpose.” – Ker Than, Live Science staff writer, 22 September 2005

Ideas have consequences.

Idiocy is what Darwinian fundamentalism leads to or as CS Lewis put it –
The Abolition of Man”.

A purely bio origin for rape means that any rapist may claim “inability to comply with law due to biological genetic coercion” as a defense. Undoing rape as a crime!!

I used to know some guys that had no problem at all with rape! “Hells angels”, “devils disciples” and other criminal group members — in fact rape and violence was an obligatory part of their initiation rite!

So let’s not ignore the fact that to people like that, finding a biological excuse for their behavior would only encourage it more.
No question about it – if they can see a legal hole in the system, created by this inane type of thinking, that provides them a biological catalyst as an excuse they WILL DO SO.

Can anyone see that this very thing in our society is at the very root of the fact that criminals are no longer guilty – they’re just “mentally ill”, sick, etc. and serial killers get away with making millions on their stories because they weren’t “evil” just genetically defective — ill ??? How many 1000′s of times have hardened criminals been let out of jail because some idiot psychologist said they were “cured”?

The whole point here is that if ANY action considered criminal, whether rape, incest, theft, lying etc., can be proven to have biological constraining factors to it – it can no longer be considered criminal because by definition crime implies free responible choice!

Even scientists are getting sick of hearing such claims presented as if was “science.” As Philip S. Skell, emeritus professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, notes in a recent edition of The Scientist:

quote:

…Darwinian explanations for [human behavior] are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self- centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.

Thems the facts. No other domain has done so much damage to the credibility of darwinism as evolutionary psychology! And these “rape” guys have really just thrown another steel rod into the darwinian machines’ wheel spokes.

Interesting article by a medical doctor and the human bodies fluid balance system – from here :

quote:

…I hope to teach you one of the more important ways that the body is able to maintain its fluid balance and then leave you with some questions that logically must be answered by those who claim that Darwin’s original theory of evolution can be extrapolated to explain how all life developed.

It is my opinion that the answers to these questions, and others like them that are to be profiled in this web column, are absolutely necessary if one is to believe in the scientific validity of macroevolution. One is certainly entitled to ignore the fact that although there is no hard scientific evidence or plausible theories that answer these questions, one may still believe in the theory of macroevolution. However, given the fact that no answers are readily available, if one is being intellectually, and might I add, scientifically honest, then one is simply trading one’s faith in intelligent design with a faith in natural processes being able to eventually explain all of the mysteries of the body that as yet have gone undiscovered, particularly the ones regarding the origin of life. But let’s carry on with our exercise.

As blood travels into the kidney, its fluid component is filtered into small tubules. The cells that line these tubules are able to reabsorb water depending on the current needs of the body. These fluid needs are made known to the kidney by the variable concentration in the circulation of a nine amino acid hormone called vasopressin (also known as anti-diuretic hormone). How does it all work so that we can stay alive? I’m sorry to tell you that it’s not as simple as you may have been led to believe.

Vasopressin is actually produced in the hypothalamic cell based on the information available in its genetic material contained in its nucleus. Come to think of it, this information is available to all of the cells of the body, but the hypothalamic cell is the only one smart enough to know how to use this information in its DNA library. Once the vasopressin molecule has been produced, it is transported to the posterior pituitary gland, which as you may have guessed is the back part of the pituitary gland that sits just below the hypothalamus. Here it is stored and made ready to be released when the body is in need of it.

The hypothalamic cell has a sensor on its cell membrane that is able to determine when the body needs more water and when it needs to release it. If one is experiencing severe dehydration, this sensor will send a strong message to the posterior pituitary gland to release more vasopressin into the bloodstream. The vasopressin will travel in the circulation where it will lock on to a specific vasopressin receptor that exists on the kidney tubule cell. This will make it reabsorb more water from the urine that the kidney is making at that moment. Conversely, if one drinks a lot of liquid when one already has enough fluid in the body, the hypothalamus will reduce its message to the posterior pituitary gland which will cause less vasopressin to be released and the kidney tubule cell will let more water stay in the urine and thereby leave the body.

But there is one more piece to the puzzle that allows this system to work properly. Can you spot what’s missing? We have a sensor in the hypothalamic cell that can detect changes in fluid balance within the body that is able to vary its message to the posterior pituitary gland. In response to the message that it receives from the hypothalamus the posterior pituitary gland sends out a varying amount of messenger protein, called vasopressin, that acts on the kidneys so that they will vary their re-absorption of water from the urine they are creating at that moment.

How long do you suppose that a given amount of vasopressin has its effect on the kidneys? Days, hours, minutes, seconds, milliseconds, nanoseconds? Don’t you think that we would need to be able to limit the effect of a given amount of vasopressin that is sent into the bloodstream from the posterior pituitary gland in order to properly regulate fluid balance?

Well the body is way ahead of you on this one. Vasopressin is broken down by the liver and excreted by the kidney. In fact, when a given amount of vasopressin is released in response to a hypothalamic stimulus, its effect only lasts a minute or two in the body. Therefore the body is able to closely monitor and make adjustments for its fluid balance. Pretty neat, huh?

So to recap, in order for one of the most important mechanisms of fluid balance to function in the body one needs:

1. a sensor in the hypothalamic cell that is able to detect the fluid needs of the body,
2. the ability of the hypothalamic cell to produce enough vasopressin to satisfy the fluid regulatory needs of the body,
3. the ability of the hypothalamic cell to transport vasopressin to the posterior pituitary gland in readiness for future use,
4. the ability of the hypothalamic cell to send a variable message to the posterior pituitary gland based on the information it receives from its sensor,
5. the ability of the posterior pituitary gland to store vasopressin,
6. the ability of the posterior pituitary gland to send out vasopressin into the bloodstream in direct relation to a nerve impulse from the hypothalamus,
7. the bloodstream, including the body’s cardiovascular system, that acts as a means of transport to allow the vasopressin to reach the kidney tubule cell,
8. the presence of a specific vasopressin receptor on the kidney tubule cell membrane that when locked onto by the vasopressin molecule causes it to absorb more water from the urine currently being produced in the kidney,
9. the presence of the kidney that forms urine in order to rid the body of toxic substances,
10. the presence and ability of the liver and kidney in tandem to rid the bloodstream of vasopressin so that it may only have a temporary effect on the kidney tubule cell and thereby allow the body to tightly control fluid balance.

It is important to note that if just one of the above ten critical factors are missing or are not functioning properly, the system will break down and will not work and the body will die. In practical terms this means that without this fully functional, irreducibly complex system in place, the body would not live long enough to be able to reproduce and pass on its genetic material to further generations of just as inefficient organisms. How do we know this? Medical scientists are quite familiar with bodily illnesses that occur because of something not working just right.

Take for example the medical condition known as diabetes insipidus. You are probably more familiar with the condition called diabetes mellitus which refers to when the body has difficulty controlling its sugar balance because of a relative lack of insulin. But diabetes insipidus is the condition in which there is a relative deficiency of vasopressin activity and the body has great difficulty maintaining its fluid balance. In this case quite often, the second critical factor listed above is not functioning properly and without modern medical science to provide adequate treatment, the patient would likely die. But remember, modern medicine can help someone who has all ten of these parts of the system in place with only one not functioning properly. But not if more than one part is totally absent.

My understanding is that according to the theory of macroevolution a step by step progression over long periods of time is thought to explain the development of all life. This progression is assumed to occur by random genetic variation or cellular transformation which is sustained by natural selection. Therefore one must ask oneself how this system, involving these ten critical factors, could have come into being one step at a time and still remained functional at every stage along the way?

Remember we have just said that if any one of the ten factors is missing the whole system breaks down. So logic would seem to dictate that those who claim the truth of macroevolution must at least demonstrate in theory how the above system could have come into place one step at a time through intermediate stages that were absent each factor mentioned above, while still remaining functional so that the organism could live and reproduce. Any explanation that involves more than one change at a time in order that the system may stay functional, is in my mind, counter to macroevolution’s mechanics and would require a total rethinking of how life developed.

Let’s see what they’re up against. Take for example the three most critical components of the system. The sensor that detects the body’s fluid needs, the messenger hormone, called vasopressin, and the hormone receptor located on the kidney tubule cell membrane. Which came into being first, second and third, so that the system was functional? If there was some other way that the body dealt with this problem, what was it, how did it work and how exactly did it develop?

What use would it be for an organism to have a sensor that can detect fluid changes in the body without a mechanism of controlling fluid balance such as through a messenger hormone and hormone receptor on a target cell in the kidney? What use would it be to have a messenger hormone in the body for which no cell membrane receptor exists?

What use is there for the target cell membrane to have a hormone receptor for which there is no messenger hormone in the body?

Don’t you find it to be an amazing coincidence that the same cell that contains the sensor to detect changes in fluid balance within the body is also capable of producing a messenger hormone that can affect a target cell that has a direct effect on fluid balance? Isn’t it incredibly lucky that the vasopressin receptor happens to be on the kidney tubule cell membrane?

What about the fine tuning of this system? How is it that the sensitivity of the hypothalamic sensor with its subsequent message to the posterior pituitary gland is adequate to allow for proper fluid balance management? Isn’t it convenient that the hypothalamic cell has the capability of producing enough vasopressin to allow the body to control the fluid in the body? What about the capacity of the posterior pituitary gland to store enough vasopressin sufficient for efficient body fluid maintenance? How about the adequate effectiveness of a given amount of vasopressin on kidney tubule cells? How did the arrangement of enough receptors on the kidney tubule cell come into being to allow for the vasopressin to exert its proper effect? How did the breakdown and elimination of vasopressin by the liver and kidney develop so that the constant changes in the fluid needs of the body could be properly controlled by the hypothalamus, the posterior pituitary gland, and the kidneys?

Finally, let’s consider each of the cells involved in the process: the hypothalamic cell, the posterior pituitary cell, the kidney tubule cell and the liver cell. All of these cells require their own supply of water, nutrients and oxygen in order to survive and function properly. They each receive them from the bloodstream. But the bloodstream is also required to transport vasopressin to the kidney tubule cell and allow the sensor in the hypothalamus to detect the fluid needs of the body.

The blood basically consists of fluid which contains chemicals and cells. In other words, the integrity of the bloodstream itself is dependent on the fluid balance of the body. Yet it is the bloodstream which services the hypothalamic, the posterior pituitary, the kidney tubule and liver cells and in addition transports the messenger hormone that is largely responsible for maintaining the control of fluid in the body. So which of them came into existence first and how did each function without the presence of the other?

As far as I am aware, there are not only no conclusive answers to any of these questions, but there aren’t even any theories that make biomolecular sense. … – Dr. Howard Glicksman

Peer reviews?

Posted: September 4, 2006 in Science

Check out this small list :

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science&printerFriendly=true

Hundreds of creationist/IDist scientists have papers published regularily. Does the fact that many of those papers do not treat of ID per se make them of any less import or value? No.

Anyone with a Phd knows that you are required to publish papers with some sort of regularity. Especially those who work in research projects. So given the very high number of science related doctorates held by creationists or IDists – one must wonder where all these lies about there being no peer reviewed papers published by creationist actually comes from.

Darwinist swallow whatever is fed them – no questions asked because asking questions is the quickest way to gain carreer inhibitors and to garner ridicule – no matter how intelligent the questions are.

See also my article on censorship – https://borne.wordpress.com/2006/09/04/darwinian-censorship-the-sick-reality-of-modern-science/.