Archive for the ‘Darwinism/Intelligent Design’ Category

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

(more…)

How many times have you heard that,

         “Evolution has been proven as much as gravity

Whenever you hear that, the first step is to ask the Darwinists: “What definition of ‘evolution’ are you referring to? Micro or Macro?”

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

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

150px-Biological_classification_L_Pengo_vflip_svg

We know that some evolution takes place with the Family and  below.  But there is not a grain of evidence that it ever takes place above the Family level. Though, there may be some overlap into the Order level. Nothing above this has ever been observed and there is no evidence that either occurs and much evidence that not only does it not occur but that it cannot occur at all!  Some might say, “The fossil record!”.

The fossil record itself refutes gradualist Darwinian style evolution. See Stephen Meyer’s, “Darwin’s Doubt”.

Humans have been breeding animals etc for millennia, trying to artificially select for this or that trait in some Family like dogs or cats, horses, roses etc.  In spite of many efforts to interbreed species from different taxonomic Families, none have ever succeeded except to bring about creatures that cannot reproduce or are severely handicapped.

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

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

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

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

In 2008, William B. Provine, Cornell University historian of science and professor of evolutionary biology, stated that “every assertion of the evolutionary synthesis below is false“:

1. Natural selection was the primary mechanism at every level of the evolutionary process. Natural selection caused genetic adaptation . . . .
4. Evolution of phenotypic characters such as eyes and ears, etc, was a good guide to protein evolution: or, protein evolution was expected to mimic phenotypic evolution.
5. Protein evolution was a good guide to DNA sequence evolution. Even Lewontin and Hubby thought, at first, that understanding protein evolution was the key to understanding DNA evolution.
6. Recombination was far more important than mutation in evolution.
7. Macroevolution was a simple extension of microevolution.
8. Definition of “species” was clear[--]the biological species concept of Dobzhansky and Mayr.
9. Speciation was understood in principle.
10. Evolution is a process of sharing common ancestors back to the origin of life, or in other words, evolution produces a tree of life.
11. Inheritance of acquired characters was impossible in biological organisms.
12. Random genetic drift was a clear concept and invoked constantly whenever population sizes were small, including fossil organisms.
13. The evolutionary synthesis was actually a synthesis.
14. Molecular biology has stolen from paleontology all ability to construct phylogenies. –   William Provine, Random Drift and the Evolutionary Synthesis, History of Science Society HSS Abstracts.

In that single paragraph, Provine destroyed almost the whole neo Darwinian theory.  And he is an adamant atheist!

It gets better, or worse if you’re a Darwinist:
A  paper in the journal Biological Theory in 2011 stated,

“Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope.”  — David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber, “The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis,” Biological Theory, Vol. 6: 89-102 (December, 2011).

And even better still:

In 2009, Computational Biologist Eugene Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information stated in “Trends in Genetics” that there are major problems in core neo-Darwinian tenets, such as the “traditional concept of the tree of life” and the view that “natural selection is the main driving force of evolution.”

Koonin stated,

the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair” and “all major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution.” Koonin concludes, “not to mince words, the modern synthesis is gone.”  — Eugene V. Koonin, “The Origin at 150: Is a New Evolutionary Synthesis in Sight?,” Trends in Genetics, Vol. 25: 473 (2009) (internal citations omitted).

Koonin is,  Senior Investigator National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH)

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

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

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

Some may wish to make reference to the old and useless, “scientific consensus” argument.

No thank you.  Science has nothing to do with consensus. If its consensus it isn’t science and if science then consensus has NOTHING to do with it.

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

Indeed, we now have incontrovertible PROOF of intelligent design in DNA. Recently discovered in DNA is that ZERO and the DECIMAL place are encoded in it and used computationally in the genome.

Under neo Darwinian terms, you don’t.  You must explain it away; something Darwinists have always been professionals at.

To reiterate some of that previous article:  There is only one single possible source for such mathematical units represented in DNA and that is necessarily intelligence – or “artificiality” as the discoverer called it stating moreover that,

“Chemical evolution, no matter how long it took, could not possibly have stumbled on the arithmetical language and initialized the decimalization of the genetic code. Physics and chemistry can neither make such abstractions nor fit the genetic code out with them. “

Being non-material abstractions, all the zero, decimal syntax and unique summations can display an artificial nature of the genetic code. They refute traditional ideas about the stochastic origin of the genetic code.

… There is no plausible chemical logic to couple directly the triplets and the amino acids. In other words, the principles of chemistry where not the sought essence of the genetic code

…The zero is the supreme abstraction of arithmetic. Its use by any alphabet, including the genetic code, can be an indicator of artificiality.

All that means that neo Darwinism is utterly wrong. Nature knows nothing of ZEROs or Decimal places – they do not exist in nature!

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

Intelligence underlies and permeates the whole genome and genetic code. 

Symbolic codes, no matter the physical medium by which they are stored to represent information, require intelligent origin.  That’s what Code is, an intelligently organized and defined suite of symbols used to represent something other than themselves, to represent information.

The information in DNA is also algorithmic – ie prescriptive, instructions.  This CANNOT arise by any mindless process.
Atheists and Darwinists have been denying (there it is again denial) this fact of life for decades.  Yet now they are backed into a fatal corner and the whole foolish fairy tale of neo Darwinian evolution is finished, or “gone” as Koonin aptly put it..

It will take many years to undo both its deeply ensconced & religiously held and legally protected “authority” and popularity and the damage it has done to science by retarding its advance.

More recently a second genetic code has been discovered imbedded in the first. Do you have any idea what that implies?

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

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

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

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

weekend-at-darwins

 

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

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

(more…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank God it isn’t!

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

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

Einstein was not an atheist by any means.

Thank God for that too.

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

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

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

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

Atheism says that your so-called rationality, your logic, your reasoning faculties; all together is “nothing but a pack of neurons.  Well, Sir Crick has passed on to the other realm that is much more solid than this one and has been obliged to answer for his crimes against the Deity, so we can’t ask him the obvious question, “Why should we listen to what a pack of neurons is saying?”, or “How can a pack of neurons be true or false?”.

Other interesting questions like this could and should be posed to atheists as often as it takes to get the message, the logical conclusions and implications of their inane position, into their incredibly stubborn heads.

In any case, we must take a quick and dirty look at one Darwinism’s chief complaints against both creationism and Intelligent Design (these are not the same).

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

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

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

Well, I would love to really get into that little delicacy, just for fun, but I don’t feel like it. ;-)

So, on to the infamous parroted “God if the gaps” accusations.

First of all, arguments of the pattern:

“Evolution cannot explain this therefore God did it” arguments, are almost never used by any informed theist and never by any of the major Intelligent Design or creationist debaters, scientists etc on this.

People like Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Douglas Marks, Jay Richards etc, do not use “gap” arguments at all.  What they really do is argue from a simplified form of “statistical mechanics” (for lack of a better term). This means that when an IDist says anything like, “no evolutionary evidence exist for this, no known evolutionary pathway exists to explain this, no known mechanism exists that can accomplish this”,  They are not saying “you can’t explain it, therefore God must have done it”.

That is simply and categorically false.

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

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

In my personal experience it is ALWAYS the last 2 options. and sometimes the first as well.

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

So, this has nothing at all to do with “gap” arguments but is merely stating the obvious based on the laws of probability! Something Darwinian biologists tend to be uniquely inapt at using or even understanding.

Designists are not saying, “we can’t see how this happened therefore God id it” at all; on the contrary!  They are saying, “the laws of probability”, thermodynamics and physics do not allow any purposeless, unguided process to create this kind of integrated functionality.

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

See?

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

Secondly, there is a humongous hypocrisy at work among the Darwinists when they foolishly choose to use this rebuttal.

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

For example, how does Darwinism explain the incredible integrated circuitry of vision, the eye?

They invent, yes invent, out of thin air, a story!

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

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

Really? Why not?

Because they simply invoke evolution of the gaps! They do this everywhere, “evolution did it”. Oh, sorry, they use slightly different terms but the answer is always the same – evolution did it!

In other words, Darwinists are the WORST offenders of “gap”, ignorance-based arguments!  They never have any viable mutational-selection pathways to explain anything but the very very trivial!  So, without a grain of empirical evidence that really does explain how vision systems developed without a “seeing” intelligence, they simply claim -loudly and with much bombast and pompous fury against any other theory, “evolution did it!”

“Proof?”

“We don’t need proof!! We KNOW evolution did it!”

“How do you know this, without proof?”

“Because no God exists! “

Oops.  There you have it.  The cat is out of the bag.  The whole system is 99% religion based. Metaphysical Naturalism. In other words. The religion of atheism.

Don’t believe this? Well then you’re being incredibly naive and demonstrating a very profound ignorance.

Just to help you out:


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

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

Some of you may not even believe an increasingly popular atheist claim going around these days, that “nothing created everything”.  Supposedly smart people like Hawking, Krauss etc. are all now claiming that the universe could create itself out of nothing.

They all try the same little magicians trick of making something disappear, when we all know its hiding under the table, up their sleeve or simply by smoke and mirrors.

What is it that they all desperately try to make disappear? Well gee, it ain’t hard? Something, that’s all.

And what magicians technique do they all use to do this with?  Some form of quantum physics. Always.  Why? Because its the only way you can fool the public.  You have to use tricks that the average Joe doesn’t know much about.  Then you have to present this trick in public with adequate levels of hand waving and slanted logic, in just enough doses to fool the gullible.

Thankfully, thank God!; the average Joe off the street still doesn’t buy the trick as being “real .magic”.

So how is this done basically, in layman’s language?Its really easy.  All you have to do is lie. All you have to do is present a lie as truth and say it quickly enough, all while subtly redefining a term here or there.

If you do it right. a whole slew of gullible people will believe the lie.

In the case before us, all you have to do is redefine the meaning of the word “nothing”, so that it actually means something, but something so abstract and unclear that a lot of people don’t see the obvious differences.

One such trick, used by Krauss, and now all of his mislead disciples, none of whom seem bright enough to discern wherein the magic lies, is equating the mathematical abstract we call ZERO, with true nothingness -i.e. the absence of everything, of anything at all in the material sense.

This is one of their favorite tricks.  And you know, the worst and possibly saddest thing about hits is that even they can’t see wherein the magic lies, beyond reality, in their little tricks!

Still the trick is obvious.

Zero isn’t nothing.
Zero is an abstract number – a mere symbol- we use to describe either true nothing of an exact equilibrium.

Now these people love to use this number as both at once, whereas, in truth, it cannot be used with the same meaning simultaneously!  The two meaning or definitions of zero here are mutually exclusive.  An equilibrium between two forces, for example, is NOT nothing!  Yet we still sue the mathematical symbol Zero or 0 -the form doesn’t matter at all- to represent this equilibrium.

This is not hard!

Let me give a very simple example that really does fit, in an analogical way, quite exactly to the New Atheist claims that nothing created everything.

Lets use an example form the world of accounting as per financial things.  We all know what it means when we say, “the books balance”, right?  Balanced accounting ledgers simply mean that the actives are exactly equal to the passives.

Now in the actual books, how is this written? Why with a zero, ie the graphical representation of zero as “0″.

So here’s where we can easily spot the tricky atheist maneuver that so easily blinds most atheists, and people looking for answers that don’t really understand what’s being discussed – and even many that should but don’t and many that do but pretend not to!

Question: when the books are balanced, does this mean there’s no money in the account?

Answer: Of course not.

My God, can you imagine the chaos in the whole world of finance if it did or didn’t according to some “scientist’s” interpretation of the symbol, changing it whenever he pleased!?

Now I’m not exaggerating here, Not at all.

On a recent “discussion” on youtube that I had with a very devoted disciple of atheist priest Krauss, a fellow who claimed to be well educated in this area of physics told me, rather adamantly as atheist always do,  that nothing can indeed create everything because the sum of the energy in the universe equals nothing.

Of course he was then referring to this Zero being both equivalent to a real “nothingness” AND the mathematical abstraction “ZERO” both at the same time. You remember I just pointed out that this doesn’t work -except when the abstraction Zero is indeed used for a real absolute nothingness.

This may seem like quibbling over a definition, but the difference is nevertheless fundamental.

So, I asked this poor fellow if he understood that if this “zero” in his sense, meant that the universe does not exist.

To my own astonishment, even with all these years of being used to atheist nonsense, he replied, yes.  So obviously I was forced to ask him if that means the universe is nothing, i.e. it doesn’t really exist.  And again to my continued astonishment he relied with a resounding, YES.

Of course then I just had to rephrase the whole thing, just to be sure now, into a “So you’re telling me that the universe doesn’t exist?”. Though I couldn’t believe he’d really understood my question, or he surely was just joking, he still said, Yes.

So there was I, an innocent theist, facing a very intelligent atheist, who was seriously telling me, without any qualms at all, that neither he nor I nor youtube, nor anything else really,  really existed!

I’m pretty sure that if you search out this, for lack of a better term, mind-blowing, conversation between an intelligent human being, and someone that doesn’t exist, you’ll be able to find it over there on that most prestigious of all scientific discussion sites, youtube,

I’m sure you’ll be strongly tempted, perhaps by the devil, to post a resounding, ROTFLMAO, as I was; and sadly I couldn’t help but to succumb, forgive me oh Lord, to such a temptation.

The books balance, my friends, therefore all that money in the account created itself, from ‘nothing’.

A child this old would be giving a nice face palm for such pitiful bull crap as this New Atheist desperate move to get rid of God no matter how stupid it makes them look.

5791829929_4f55d2168e

 

 

The list of foolish -often utterly stupid- claims made by atheists is very long indeed.  Virtually ALL the claims made by the so-called “New Atheists” from Dawkins to Harris to Dennet to you-name-em, and all the claims based on those claims fall into that category.

This is rather astounding. Why? Because a large part of of the population in the West and in Europe have bought into this glaring stupidity. What kind of average IQ rating can we give people,  in spite of how blatantly obvious the endless self-contradictions are, that cannot see these contradictions?

You decide.

I my own view, that average IQ goes down by several points every time one of these “new atheist” high priests opens his mouth to speak or writes another book.  Truly, these inane drones, blind leaders of the blind, could reduce the average IQ of the entire world population by several points every year they continue to promote the idiocies they perpetually try to pass off as “fact”, “reason”, “logic”, “true” etc,,

These people just don’t get it or else they really are as wicked as I believe they are -deliberately speaking what they know is nonsense.

The ridiculous propositions they think are weighty against the existence of a God, a supreme being, a supernatural being are nothing more than bad logic, blind faith in nothing and among the worst of all the dumb propositions devised since the beginning of the 20th century.

To illustrate this, once again, I’ll quote a recent comment -really really stupid- I felt sadly obliged to confront on a blog.  Of course anyone that reads my articles here knows how harsh I can be to atheists.  Let me explain this just a little here.  I’ve been debating atheists and atheism for many long years -over 30- on and off the we for a about 15 years now.

About 99% of every single debate I’ve either had myself, or watched some other poor theists attempting to reason with atheists in, has been little more than an insult fest.  Most of almost completely devoid of any sign of intelligence in atheism.  As soon as the atheist is faced with the glaring problems of logic and reason in his inane position,l the discussion is over; the insult session begins.  And in this it doesn’t matter how much proof, evidence, logic, fact or reason one brings against atheism’s multitudinous stupidities, the theist receives nothing but a slew of often vulgar, nasty, 4 lettered superlatives and accusations of stupidity etc. from the atheist crowd.

Don’t believe me? Fine.  Go see for yourself.  Very easy to verify on virtually any atheist or theist blog or forum on the web.

Ok so are you ready?  I hope so.

If you’re not an atheist you will no doubt see the foolishness of such comments immediately.  If you’re unfortunate enough to be an atheist you will almost certainly not see a thing.

Here’s the original comment :

“That’s simply because it’s based on observation and rational thought. It’s consistent not because it’s manufactured to be so, but because it actually is consistenct with reality.
Religion relies on dogma to be consistent and does a pretty poor job of it (as numerous schisms have shown).”

And here are my comments -with all my usual angst against atheism and its willfully blind and willfully ignorant victims or dupes.  I’ve modified the format and presentation order, and also added some comments in square brackets to make it a bit clearer :

He stated,  “That’s simply because it’s based on observation …”

My response:

Why are atheists always so blind to reality and void of any genuine logic?

Tell us, oh rational one, what observation are you referring to exactly?
Which observation is it that proves there is no God or even no supernatural?
None whatsoever & you know it well too; therefore you’re doubly guilty -of both willful stupidity and fraud.

He said, “…and rational thought”

My response:

What rational thought are you pretending here?
Where is the rational thought that proves atheism?
Atheism denies the very reality of rationality itself by relegating all thought to mere materialism.

“If naturalism [atheism] were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes…it cuts its own throat.”
Simple.

Atheism according to atheists [American Atheists web site],

“Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, … there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be”

My response:

My, such a slew of glaring self contradictions in such a small paragraph is amazing!
They claim that “nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter”

Can they prove this? Using their own feeble methodologies [methodological naturalism]?
No, of course not, and they themselves say so!!

If, by default [and using your own method], you cannot posit [or detect] any supernatural existence then how on earth could you ever possibly “know” that there is no such thing!?
A child could see through such blatant stupidity, but not the well potty-trained atheist!

A wiser man (ex-atheist) wrote,

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

This undoes the self contradicting atheist statement on thought, in one single simple phrase.

He adds,

“If he is honest,… the materialist will have to admit that his own ideas are merely the “epiphenomenon which accompanies chemical or electrical events in a cortex which is itself the by-product of a blind evolutionary process.” … In other words, there is no reason according to materialism for materialism itself to be regarded as true”

You are nothing but a pack of neurons“, said atheist Francis Crick.

So tell us, why should anyone give a crap about what your neurons are doing?  Under atheism you’re just a slab of animated meat.   Rationality cannot be defined as meat.   The sooner you finally use your brain to figure out that, if atheism is true, then you really are nothing but animated meat, the sooner you might get free from the abject intellectual poverty of atheism.

The atheist said,  “It’s consistent not because it’s manufactured to be so, but because it actually is consistenct with reality.

My response:

Atheism isn’t even consistent with itself!! Wake up and smell the oxymorons!
Atheism IS denial of reality.
He then said, “Religion relies on dogma to be consistent and does a pretty poor job of it (as numerous schisms have shown).

My response:

Absolutely wrong again and again merely parroting what some poor twit said on some atheist web site.

You were raised on humanism and you swallowed its ubiquitous lies and propaganda. You’re bound in the snares of its multitudinous idiocies, all while thinking yourself to be “free” and a “thinker”.
Packs of neurons can neither be free nor thinkers.

Atheism rational?! rotfl
You, like all atheists, are exactly like the man born blind that denies the existence of light and color because he himself cannot see it, and then you claim this is “rational”!

Think on that and maybe you’ll start really thinking for the 1st time in your life.

Ok, so there you have my initial response.

The greatest contradiction in atheism is this pretension that you can have rationality in an atheist universe.  You cannot have rationality in a universe that is itself irrational.  You cannot have rationality in a universe that is purely and solely material -matter.  Matter is not rational, it doesn’t think, has, no consciousness and no will.

You may as assign an IQ to a rock, intelligence to a piece of meat as to believe rationality exist by accidents in matter.

Rationality itself is purely conceptual. It relies completely on absolute values and absolute laws of logic to even exist.

Neither of which exist in atheism!

I’m always amazed and astounded and confounded when I hear atheists bragging of reason, logic, rationality etc. within a world view, a philosophy that itself, by default, by its own tenets, denies even the possibility that these things can even exist as anything real!   Rationality, under atheism, is nothing but a material pack of neurons.  It’s nothing but animated meat, electrochemical activity in meat.  It CANNOT ever be more because according to atheism, that’s all that exists!!

Yet the atheist never can figure this simple fact out.  Crick did, so did many others, but they always end up denying the necessary logical implications and consequences of their foolish ideas.

Therefore, all while claiming to be perfectly logical, the atheist must deny major facets of logic, in order to keep his position “consistent” with itself.  Yet, the very act of denying these vital aspects of reason and logic, the atheist automatically, whether he likes it or not, whether hes sees it or not has denied his own foundations for atheism!!!

Unreal to say the least. Stupidity personified to say the most.

I wish I could be nicer to atheists.  If some day, by some major miracle in the space-time-information continuum, atheists change their intrinsically arrogant and insulting methods of “debate”,  I will gladly give them a little more respect.  Not much mind you, as this would change nothing of the intellectually abject poverty of their position.

 

 

The Darwinian propaganda juggernaut is a lot like a T-Rex: huge, stupid, vicious and utterly intolerant of dissension.  But it’s slowing down.

Its engine is broken down to the point that it can no longer provide the force necessary to keep its velocity.  The engine runs on gas (hot air) and the hot air is the only thing keeping the machine from completely falling apart.


In my last article I talked about the implications of finding the abstract concept of ZERO and the decimal point encoded in the genome. Those implications, by themselves, dismantle at least 90% of the Darwinian juggernaut -making it slowly devolve into a rusty old truck ready for the scrap heap where it always belonged.

Discoveries such as shCherback’s ruin Darwinian hopes for a badly needed religious revival of the metaphysical materialist underpinning of the whole schema.  Yes, Darwinism is a religion. It’s called Metaphysical Naturalism -a very old religion to boot. This is the religion of the atheists, or materialists if you will.  It origins myth is Darwinism (the modern synthesis or neo-Darwinism).

The drivers of this rusting old  junk heap of a machine are still at the wheel but they’re finding it harder and harder to steer, harder and harder to keep it on its course and harder to keep it moving.

Here’s a short list of reasons why Darwinism, like its master St. Charles, the prophet of materialism, is dead already:

*Genetic entropy

-shows that neutral and harmful mutations are far more numerous than beneficial ones and that therefore
-shows that genomes are devolving not evolving
-the mechanism that leads to mutational meltdown cannot be the same mechanism by which ~10 million life forms arose n earth
-all by itself Gentropy (new word if you please) should have eliminated Darwinism as a viable theory

*Information theory

-Nature has no mind and abstractions only exist in minds
-Information itself is metaphysical, not matter or energy as atheist Darwinism hold
-Specifically, encoded prescriptive or algorithmic information cannot arise by any natural means since codes are universally symbolic sign systems. Sign systems are universally abstract & arbitrary requiring a conceiver. Abstractions do not and cannot exist in nature as nature has no mind or ability to conceptualize.
-Since codes cannot arise by any stochastic process this means DNA was designed, as shCherbak stated, it must be artificial.  This too, all by itself and for obvious reasons, reduces Darwinism to dust & ashes

*Statistical mechanics

-By this I refer to probability & statistics applied to genomes and their structures
-The vast quantity of well structured, functional machines working in genomes -with purpose- requires instructions for the assembly of their component parts, DNA/RNA contain these instructions
-The parts of any compound components requiring precise assembly, must be precisely shaped, sized, fitted and implemented with materials capable of resisting environmental pressures such as sheer, compression, friction etc. inherent in any machine. To assume that blind unguided nature somehow stumbled up so many of such objects of the right shape, materials, properties and sizes by mutation, and that they accidentally happen to work together, is insanely ludicrous and defies everything we know of the laws of probability & mechanical engineering;
-Functional, useful, compound nano machines and the instructions necessary to assemble them cannot be symbolically encoded  by any random mutational process;  symbols do not exist in nature, they are conceptually determined (mind); no more than computer programs can write themselves by juggling millions of bits for all eternity could ever create an operating system
-Genomes are far far greater, and strictly regulated, than any human designed OS is and probably ever will be
-The combinatorial dependencies created by biological nano machines are a statisticians nightmare.  They are humongous in number, and this also rules out any chance of random mutations + selection creating any of these machines, their assembly instructions and the assembly machinery itself. Machine parts must be in correct position, size, shape, etc. with each other or you end up with a literal combinatorial “explosion” of the machine itself in the cell. Combinatorial explosions are exponential. This complicates things for Darwinian theory infinitely, to the point of no return.

*Inter cooperating nano machines

-Biological machines cannot ‘know’ what to do, where to go etc. yet are assembled for and function for clear precise purposes in genomes
-Hundreds if not thousands of such machines exist in the genomes of any complex species
-If the Darwinian mechanism of mutations + selection could create such machines we should see useless ones scattered everywhere in genomes; but we don’t. We always find perfectly functional machines and clear purpose
-The Darwinians respond to such facts with their usual mere denial. Denial of these being “real” machines -its just a metaphor they claim. But it is no analogy. As Yockey proved that the genetic is is mathematically identical to human devised codes and languages, this applies to biological nano machines as well. They are real machines as much as any automobile motor or space shuttle are real machines.

*The fossil record

-The fossil record is sorely lacking in intermediate forms; such forms should number in the billions given the number of species and their vast differences from the so-called “last universal common ancestor”
-Biological explosions such as the Cambrian or Avalonian reveal species showing up complete, fully adapted suddenly (in geochrono terms) with no know ancestors
-A very curious thing that Darwinists never seem to grasp is that when they claim something found in the fossil record is an ancestor or a link to some other newer species, they are already assuming the validity of Darwinism. In other words, in order to claim anything is an ancestor of any other thing, one has to assume Darwinism is true beforehand. This is not only a logical fallacy but a very foolish lack of thinking on their part
-In Darwinism every living and every dead thing is an intermediate. So why bother shouting so loudly, “Hey we have found an intermediate!”. Really? Well seeing that everything is, by default, an intermediate, the only response is, “So? Who cares? Everything and everyone is an intermediate”.
-Another fundamental problem with pretending anything is a link to something else, is that no fossil ever comes with its pedigree inscribed in it. Such pedigrees are only and always assigned by the Darwinian discoverer of the fossil. Based on what? It’s always based on his assumption that the theory is true! Hardly scientific. Thus, imagination is the closest thing to the reality of alleged intermediate forms.

*Laboratory experiments

-Lenski‘s experiments, if they reveal anything, tell us that you can only get E.coli out E.coli
-These experiments have produced over 56K generations of E.coli; this is equivalent to approximately 1 million years of human generations. But there’s a very serious flaw in this whole thing.  Consider: In the corresponding time it has taken humanity’s alleged last common ancestor to evolve into homo sapiens from some primitive primate, which is allegedly about 2.3 million years, E.coli has done nothing but trivial adaptation to one unique environmental stress. And that with information loss!
Think about that is reference to Darwinist devised time lines. Humans supposedly came about 2.3 million years ago? Wow, in all that time E.coli are still E.coli, but homo sapiens is endowed with such a vast number of traits, not found in its alleged ancestors that one is at a complete loss to explain how such vast changes could have all happened in such a ridiculously short time.  We’re talking millions of uninterrupted beneficial mutations to get from some advanced ape-like ancestor to full fledged human. In just a bit less time than that, poor E. coli has managed only a couple of trivial mutations!

The real question here is, “Why do Darwinists continue to believe their own inane drone hypothesis, when faced with such salient anomalies?  Well, the only real, honest answer to that is, “by faith”. Blind faith to boot. For, the very experiments designed to show us all Darwinian evolution in action, have shown us all almost nothing worth noting, very trivial evolutionary change. And that in approximately the same amount of time (2.3 million years mind you – not 2.1 or 2.4) it allegedly took humans to evolve from some dimwitted cave dwelling creature into homo sapiens!

Such gratuitous credulity is hardly based on the results of these experiments, or any others. Its based rather on religion, Metaphysical Naturalism, i.e. good old self contradictory atheism. Or, if you please, on wishful thinking.

Much more could be written here, but suffice it to say that neo Darwinism should have been buried years ago. However, seeing as how metaphysics underlies its whole raison d’être and that devout Darwinian adepts refuse to abandon it.  They won’t leave the materialist religion they rely on for their personal sense of psychological security in their world view. Thus, we have seen no funeral.

What we are seeing today is a veritable “scientific community” version of “Weekend at Bernies”, where the cadaver is propped up and made to appear alive. This is exactly current Darwinism, the new corpse. Propped up by hype, propaganda and lots of story telling (should I mention “threatenings and slaughter”?) to divert the public attention away from Bernie’s true condition.

Of course, all this was very frustrating and confusing for Paulie, the mob hit man who, falling for the ruse, was still trying to kill poor dead Bernie.

Darwin_tomb

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

The discoveries covered in this are yet another wonderful refutation of Darwinism.

Of course, we know beforehand that the Darwinians will deny these clear implications, as they always do when any discovery challenges their secular humanism (a religion) based theory.  That’s because Darwinism is materialism’s origins myth.

For example shCherbak writes,

“There seems to be but one conclusion: the genetic code is itself a unique structure of arithmetical syntax. The arithmetical syntax is separated from natural events by the unbridgeable gap between the fundamental laws of nature and the abstract codes of the human mind (Barbieri, 2005). Chemical evolution, no matter how long it took, could not possibly have stumbled on the arithmetical language and initialized the decimalization of the genetic code. Physics and chemistry can neither make such abstractions nor fit the genetic code out with them.”

“The zero is the supreme abstraction of arithmetic. Its use by any alphabet, including the genetic code, can be an indicator of artificiality.”

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

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

Indeed, the very definition of the word abstract is as follows:

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

8. an idea or term considered apart from some material basis or object.
9. an abstract work of art.

Note: removed unrelated definitions (related to arts)

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

The very obvious conclusion of the existence of abstraction being used in the genetic code is a proof – not a mere evidence – that the genetic code was created by a mind, and intelligence.

ShCherbak states this very clearly in his statement- that I repeat for emphasis, “Incidentally, such an acting zero alone might be sufficient to assume an artificial nature of the genetic code.

An “artificial origin” is the same as “intelligently designed”.

There is no other source for abstraction but mind and only mind can understand it.

Is this thus the end of Darwinism?

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

As Dr. David Abel explains,

“Not even Descriptive semantic information is achievable by inanimate physicodynamics (Pattee, 1972, 1995, 2001). Measuring initial conditions in any experiment and plugging those measurements appropriately into equations (e.g., physical “laws”) is formal, not physical. Cybernetic programming choices and mathematical manipulations are also formal.

The specific term PI originated out of a need to qualify the kind of information being addressed in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Shannon measured only probabilistic combinatorial uncertainty. Uncertainty is not information. It is widely recognized that even reduced uncertainty (“R,” poorly termed “mutual entropy”) fails to adequately describe and measure intuitive information. Intuitive information entails syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Syntax deals with symbol sequence, various symbol associations, and related arbitrary rules of grouping. Semantics deals with the meanings represented within any symbol system. Pragmatics addresses the formal function of messages conveyed using that symbol system.” – http://www.scitopics.com/Prescriptive_Information_PI.html

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

Again Abel notes,

“No one has ever observed PI flow in reverse direction from inanimate physicodynamics to the formal side of the ravine—the land of bona fide formal pragmatic “control.” The GS Principle states that selection for potential function must occur at the molecular-genetic level of nucleotide selection and sequencing, prior to organismic existence (Abel, 2009b, d).

Differential survival/reproduction of already-programmed living organisms (natural selection) is not sufficient to explain molecular evolution or life-origin (Abel, 2009b). Life must be organized into existence and managed by prescriptive information found in both genetic and epigenetic regulatory mechanisms. The environment possesses no ability to program linear, digital folding instructions into the primary structure of biosequences and biomessages.

The environment also provides no ability to generate Hamming block codes (e.g. triplet codons that preclude noise pollution through a 3-to-1 symbol representation of each amino acid) (Abel and Trevors, 2006a, 2007). The environment cannot decode or translate from one arbitrary language into another. The codon table is arbitrary and physicodynamically indeterminate. No physicochemical connection exists between resortable nucleotides, groups of nucleotides, and the amino acid that each triplet codon represents. Although instantiated into a material symbol system, the prescriptive information of genetic and epigenetic control is fundamentally formal, not physical.”

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

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

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

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

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

‘Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big truths.’ – Lewontin, R.C., The Inferiority Complex, New York Review of Books, 22 October 1981, p. 13.

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

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

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

charles-darwin-headache ;-)

In my last article I posted in response to an atheist that claimed that I don’t understand, atheism, metaphysics, information, evidence etc..  I attempted to show how atheists don’t understand their own position by using some of his claims and dismantling their obvious errors.  Not surprisingly this same atheist has once again responded with the same insistence and of course, the same errors.  He has still not seen any light.  Of course not, he would have to off his blinders to see any light.

So here, once again, I’ll post some of his further misguided comments and respond. This time for the last time as I’ve learned over the years that arguing with adamantly religious atheist fundamentalists is a waste of time.  They cannot see because they don’t want to see and thus live in perpetual denial of reality and darkness.

So let’s deal with his first, unsurprising because almost universal with watheists, but utterly wrong claim,

“Evidence for atheism? No, atheism is the default position.”

This is a ubiquitous claim amongst atheists but still very wrong and that for several reasons:

1. Who says atheism is the default position?

Can anyone seriously make this claim and back it up?  No.  It is a positive claim to knowledge that no atheist possesses.  Worse – Can atheists prove this? Have they proved this? No they have not and no they cannot.

The claim assumes, or rather presumes, that metaphysical beliefs, religion and faith if you please, are taught and learned from early childhood.  It assumes that no metaphysical concepts exist in initially in very young children.  It also assumes,  (once again revealing that the atheist here doesn’t understand that he has a positively chosen position, a religious belief),  that atheism is a non position – no position at all!  This is rather amazing persistence in the foolishness of denial of reality that is atheism.  Yet, this same atheist implores me to open up comments so he (in his own mind) can refute what I’m saying here!  He has not understood the real nature of atheism yet, but still wants to refute it!

2.  If atheism is the default position, where is the proof of this?

The atheist wrongly assumes that a default position doesn’t require proof.  If this were the default position it still requires proof that it ought truly be the default position.  Back to square one! More atheist circular reasoning that they their default cognitive dissonance creating position hinders them from detecting.

3. There is ever mounting evidence that atheism is not the default position.

Dr. Justin L. Barrett is senior researcher at University of Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind and the Institute for Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology.  Barrett has published studies demonstrating that metaphysical beliefs or innate or born in humans.  His research, which is also based on or associated with the research of many others who have come to the same conclusions, is that humans are born with a natural propensity to believe in God, purpose in life, and they demonstrate a clear recognition of designed artifacts versus natural ones right from the earliest stages of cognition.  Here is a link to a short article.  Dr. Barrett has even written a book on the subject called Born Believers: The Science of Children’s Religious Belief.

As one commenter of the book put it,

“A fascinating and readable account of why religious beliefs are perfectly normal and virtually universal. In an age of atheism, this book will challenge widespread assumptions that nonbelief is the default and that children must be indoctrinated to believe.  Jam-packed with insight and wit, Born Believers should be required reading for all parents and for anyone else interested in the spiritual lives of children.”  — Robert A. Emmons, Professor of Psychology, University of California

Barrett stated,

“The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children’s minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose,” – on BBC Radio “4 Today”.
“If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God.”

I may also point to the work of Paul Bloom of the Department of Psychology, Yale University, USA.  His essay called, “Religion is natural”, Bloom says,

“The proposal here is that there are certain early-emerging cognitive biases that give rise to religious belief. These include body–soul dualism and a hyper-sensitivity to signs of agency and design. These biases make it natural to believe in Gods and spirits, in an afterlife, and in the divine creation of the universe. These are the seeds from which religion grows.”

Many other recent research articles could be noted.

Atheists are once again shown to be off in their logic and metaphysics.  Once again, I provide solid and simple reasoning and evidence whereas the atheist provides bare assertions.    Assertions that, no matter how universal, inevitably turn out to be false.

Thus you can see why the atheists next statement is also wrong,

“The claims that need evidence are the positive claims “there is a God” or “there is no God”. 

Worse, or perhaps better, I’m not sure, the atheist says,

“Atheism is simply the position of not accepting the positive claims. Without evidence either way I am agnostic. But I am also an atheist. Your writing undoubtedly betrays your lack of awareness of this position.”

Here is the atheist has modified his definition of himself in contradictory ways.  First he states that atheism, previously a mere absence of belief, is now a refusal to accept evidence – which is exactly what I’ve been saying all along!  So has he accepted this at last?  Apparently no, as he is very confused as well.  How so?  He now claims to be an atheist agnostic.  But the two are mutually exclusive! One cannot be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time.   Agnostics are not atheists, they simply claim they don’t know whether their is a God or not, and many also claim that such knowledge is unattainable.  Atheists, on the other hand do not believe in God at all, and many, such as this atheist friend of ours here, adamantly refuse all evidence pointing to a supreme being.  “Curiouser and curiouser”!

Then he adds,

Not only that, but even if you do attack atheism it doesn’t prove theism true.”

This is rather surprising since I stated clearly in the previous article that proving any specific evidence for God wrong does not prove there is no God. Obviously the reverse is true. Proving atheist counter propositions to God to be false doesn’t prove there is a God.  And?

Then he insults my academic and experiential credentials – a bachelors degree in informatics plus many years of experience in information technologies – by stating,

“As for your not understanding information, you don’t. The idea that you think information necessitates a mind is just a nonsense.”

Obviously our friend is very uniformed on information himself.  As he follows with this,

“Are the ice core records not information? Are tree-rings not information? Are soil layers not information? If they are then information obviously doesn’t need a mind, and if not explain why DNA is information and these things are not.”

Here we see a very common and glaring error committed by atheists attempting to refute the laws of information and the nature of  specified information. Once again the atheist fails to discern between information and the medium in which it is stored, even though I clearly explained this hereAlso here and here as well.  Not clearly enough apparently, or he didn’t read it.

Our atheist antagonist commits intellectual suicide here, not realizing that this very statement proves him wrong.

Ice cores, tree rings, soil layers etc. are information? No they are not.

However, a mind can derive information from them by obtaining previous knowledge on interpretation of ice layering properties etc..  The information on conditions of the various eras when the ice was formed exists only in a mind that can reason upon its natural properties. It is not structured information contained in the ice itself.  This is not specified information.  It isn’t algorithmic at all.  Not is it encodedm, the code exist in the mind of the interpreter alone.

The same thing applies to tree rings, soil layers, and the color of stars, a benzene molecule etc.  These things merely are what they are.  Information derived by understanding their nature and condition is completely other and can only be derived by a mind using logic.  Logic is a property only of minds.   Rocks have no logic.  Rocks carry only derivable information.

The information contained in DNA is however another matter altogether – again as I previously explained in the original article.  It is algorithmic, prescriptive and descriptive information such as one finds in a recipe or a set of plans for building a car. It’s information doesn not point only to itself but describes whole information systems constructed with proteins by long sequential algorithmically ordered molecules of amino acids.

I suggest those interested in a real understanding of information read the published papers of Dr David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors here.  Their work and lucent reasoning is devastating to both atheism and it’s origins myth Darwinism.

Here’s a short excerpt on their work from Biosemiotic Research Trends,

Genomic instructions are a form of what Abel (Abel, 2002, Abel and Trevors, 2005) calls prescriptive information. Such a clarifying descriptor of information is necessary to distinguish mere Shannon combinatorial uncertainty and Kolmogorov complexity from functional algorithmic strings. Algorithms steer events and behaviors towards predictable usefulness.  Prescriptive information utilizes a sign system to either instruct or direct compute utility.

Artificial life investigators and most applied biologists accepted this reality early on. Steering is required to achieve sophisticated function of any kind. Much of the life-origin research community, however, continues to “live in denial” of this fact.

The atheist/agnostic (don’t think he knows what he is) then states,

“Now, your last post contradicts your About section”

Right.  Nuff’ said.

Then he adds, with equally unimpressive lucidity,

“See, to think about it you really need to be open to contrary views and to debate the evidence, you’re not willing to do that. What you are doing is closing the comments section and spreading dishonesty.”

Sadly, his own mind is shut like a trap and has probably been on hold for many years.  The fact is that I’ve debated thousands of times with atheists, on and off line.  So this poor dupe again insults me by claiming that I, like himself,  have a closed mind and am not willing to debate! Laughable and truly pathetic. Oh and once again, there is no evidence for atheism.

The only dishonesty witnessed around wen forums where fanatical atheists attempt to debate their “default” non-position is amongst atheist themselves, the most dishonest pseudo thinkers on earth.

He invites me to debate on his blog.

Sorry dear boy but no.  That’s my only sane response, given he has understood virtually nothing I’ve said thus far and I have no hopes he ever will.   I’ve seen overwhelming evidence of the following statements too many times for one person in one life and as I stated before, no longer interested in wasting time arguing endlessly with willful fools,

“The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability…..” – Voltaire: Philosophical Dictionary

“You can lead an atheist to evidence but you can’t make him think.” – Ray Comfort

There is no God and I am his prophet