Intelligent Design

Alice In Wonderland

Spread the love

The debate is over.

Thus we are told by the Darwinian establishment. Of course, the debate is not over by definition, because debate continues. What this really means is that “evolution” is a fact, and the “fact” of evolution does not mean that living things have changed over time, but that the Darwinian mechanism of random errors (of any kind imagined or unimagined) filtered by natural selection can explain everything in the history of life, including the most sophisticated computer program ever devised, which is engendered in every cell of every living creature.

I am one of those rare people who has actually read the attempts of Darwinists to refute Behe’s irreducible-complexity argument, and the so-called refutations are always the same: thoroughly speculative fantasies about “co-option” that don’t withstand even the most trivial analytical scrutiny, and protein-sequence similarities that are perfectly irrelevant to the question at hand.

Yet, we are told that these completely unsupported speculations have closed the case, even though they are obviously incredible on any grounds of rationality or evidence. Furthermore, we are told that anyone who challenges these speculations is “an enemy of science.”

Darwinism is a bizarre Alice-in-Wonderland fantasy, completely dislocated from modern scientific and empirical reality, down a rabbit hole where as many as six impossible things are believed before breakfast — and sold as scientific fact.

75 Replies to “Alice In Wonderland

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    I was asked yesterday if I could put a ballpark figure on ‘how much smarter the programming is in DNA compared to our best computer programmers?’

    and I said:

    ‘Mike the programming in even the simplest life on earth is far, far beyond what even our best teams of engineers are capable of,,,

    Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information – David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors – Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8
    “No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms’ genomes programmed?”
    http://www.biomedcentral.com/c.....2-2-29.pdf

    ,,, and that is just the ‘classical’ programming we are aware of, There is another level of programming in the DNA (and proteins) that employs quantum information that scientists have just become aware of and no-one really has any firm clue as to how deep is the programming information in it, though just from what I can glimpse of it, I know it is very sophisticated!,,, Just to give a ballpark figure of how much more advanced is the programming in DNA compared to our best programmers, it has been calculated that the information density of DNA is trillions of times higher than what is on our most advanced computer chips!

    3-D Structure Of Human Genome: Fractal Globule Architecture Packs Two Meters Of DNA Into Each Cell – Oct. 2009
    Excerpt: the information density in the nucleus is trillions of times higher than on a computer chip — while avoiding the knots and tangles that might interfere with the cell’s ability to read its own genome. Moreover, the DNA can easily unfold and refold during gene activation, gene repression, and cell replication.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142957.htm

    Do you believe Richard Dawkins exists?
    Excerpt: DNA is the best information storage mechanism known to man. A single pinhead of DNA contains as much information as could be stored on 2 million two-terabyte hard drives.
    http://creation.com/does-dawkins-exist

  2. 2
    Muramasa says:

    For such an allegedly sophisticated computer program, I would have thought it would have been designed with more robust error checking.

  3. 3
    GilDodgen says:

    Muramasa,

    The error-detection-and-correction algorithms and machinery in the cell exceed in sophistication anything human software engineers have even dreamed about in their wildest fantasies, much less implemented.

    What are you talking about?

  4. 4
    Muramasa says:

    Well, you know, the various diseases that can result from faulty cell duplication, inborn errors of metabolism. that sort of thing.

    Yes, yes, I know that I’m not supposed to use the “Bad Design Means No Design” argument. But the system as it exists has more in common with a cobbled together system than one that was lovingly designed.

  5. 5
    Puragu says:

    Muramasa, the level of error checking in DNA replication exceeds anything man does in his software or his society. The reason you do find incredibly rare inborn errors of metabolism and other genetic diseases is due to the astronomically huge number of replications which occur in the body, the effects of (mostly man-made) carcinogens and mutagens and improved health care which allows preterm infants (often having genetic problems) to be able to survive. No system existing within the realm of possible insults and of the complexity of a cell, let alone billions of interacting cells can be perfect in eliminating all errors. Compare this to how often you get error messages in Windows or CRC errors in compressed software.

  6. 6
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    Gil,
    Do you have any thoughts on DNA repair by NHEJ (Non-homologous end joining)?

    Do the thereby created new sequences display higher or lower CSI than the original one?

  7. 7
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    Puragu

    Compare this to how often you get error messages in Windows or CRC errors in compressed software.

    When I do that comparison the cell comes out looking decidedly old fashioned. I regularly transfer multi-terabyte files across large distances and the (very) occasional error is caught and corrected (in real time) before it has a chance to do any harm.

    Cells on the other hand go spectacularly wrong (e.g. cancer) and kill you on a depressingly regular basis.

    For a construct (human body) with such a large number of components the error correcting mechanisms are relatively poor. 1 in 3 people get’s cancer. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the “intelligent designers” skills is it?

    Oh, but if course the argument will be made that errors have crept into the “perfect” design over time. But the problem there is that the design therefore was not “perfect” in the first place or that could not have happened.

    Then perhaps the argument will be made that “the fall” caused all this, but that’s unlikely as on another thread people are currently arguing that ID has no religious component at all.

    Gil,

    The error-detection-and-correction algorithms and machinery in the cell exceed in sophistication anything human software engineers have even dreamed about in their wildest fantasies, much less implemented.

    Yet I could digitally transfer the genome of a human being a billion times across the internet over to a remote site and have a perfect copy each and every time. And if there was an error I would know it and correct it. The same cannot be said for the biological equivalent.

    So while to you the error-detection-and-correction algorithms and machinery in the cell exceed in sophistication anything human software engineers might dream of but to me it looks under engineered for the task at hand.

    Simple copying errors cause untold misery to many tens of thousands of people and yet this is utter perfection beyond the dreams of man? In fact I know some doctors who would gladly trade our ability for perfect replication of digital data for the organic equivalent as it would prevent so much misery in the world.

    Yet here the mechanisms that cause cancer are somehow the most sophisticated computer programs ever devised. Bizarre.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Muramasa states this;

    ‘But the system as it exists has more in common with a cobbled together system than one that was lovingly designed.’

    Muramasa stated this despite the fact that I had just referenced work that showed the simplest life on Earth to be far more advanced in programming than our best computer programs, and engineered trillions of time better than our best computer chips!?!

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-375210

    Well lets glimpse the repair system that Muramasa is so dissatisfied with. A repair system that he apparently thinks he can design to be much better than it is since he sees it as ‘merely’ cobbled together by the purposeless processes of Darwinian evolution with no real foresight being apparent in its engineering;

    Quantum Dots Spotlight DNA-Repair Proteins in Motion – March 2010
    Excerpt: “How this system works is an important unanswered question in this field,” he said. “It has to be able to identify very small mistakes in a 3-dimensional morass of gene strands. It’s akin to spotting potholes on every street all over the country and getting them fixed before the next rush hour.” Dr. Bennett Van Houten – of note: A bacterium has about 40 team members on its pothole crew. That allows its entire genome to be scanned for errors in 20 minutes, the typical doubling time.,, These smart machines can apparently also interact with other damage control teams if they cannot fix the problem on the spot.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....123522.htm

    Researchers discover how key enzyme repairs sun-damaged DNA – July 2010
    Excerpt: Ohio State University physicist and chemist Dongping Zhong and his colleagues describe how they were able to observe the enzyme, called photolyase, inject a single electron and proton into an injured strand of DNA. The two subatomic particles healed the damage in a few billionths of a second. “It sounds simple, but those two atomic particles actually initiated a very complex series of chemical reactions,” said Zhong,,, “It all happened very fast, and the timing had to be just right.”
    http://www.physorg.com/news199111045.html

    More DNA Repair Wonders Found – October 2010
    Excerpt: This specialized enzyme may attract other repair enzymes to the site, and “speeds up the process by about 100 times.” The enzyme “uses several rod-like helical structures… to grab hold of DNA.”,,, On another DNA-repair front, today’s Nature described a “protein giant” named BRCA2 that is critically involved in DNA repair, specifically targeting the dangerous double-stranded breaks that can lead to serious health consequences
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20101007a

    Scientists Decipher Missing Piece Of First-responder DNA Repair Machine – Oct. 2009
    Excerpt: The first-responder machine, a protein complex called Mre11-Rad50-Nbs1 (or MRN for short), homes in on the gravest kind of breaks in which both strands of a DNA double helix are cut. It then stops the cell from dividing and launches an error-free DNA repair process called homologous recombination, which replaces defective genes.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....164106.htm

    There are three major DNA repairing mechanisms: base excision, nucleotide excision and mismatch repair.
    http://www.web-books.com/MoBio/Free/Ch7G.htm

    The Darwinism contradiction of repair systems
    Excerpt: The bottom line is that repair mechanisms are incompatible with Darwinism in principle. Since sophisticated repair mechanisms do exist in the cell after all, then the thing to discard in the dilemma to avoid the contradiction necessarily is the Darwinist dogma.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....r-systems/

    ‘How good would each typists have to be, in order to match the DNA’s performance? The answer is almost too ludicrous to express. For what it is worth, every typists would have to have an error rate of about one in a trillion; that is, he would have to be accurate enough to make only a single error in typing the Bible 250,000 times at a stretch. A good secretary in real life has an error rate of about one per page. This is about a billion times the error rate of the histone H4 gene. A line of real life secretaries (without a correcting reference) would degrade the text to 99 percent of its original by the 20th member of the line of 20 billion. By the 10,000 member of the line less than 1 percent would survive. The point near total degradation would be reached before 99.9995% of the typists had even seen it.
    Richard Dawkins – The blind watchmaker – Page 123-124

    ,,,,Muramasa since you seem to be so confident that Darwinian processes did this, perhaps you can show me where any machine whatsoever was ‘cobbled together’ by evolution instead of just finding fault with what you don’t even fully understand?!?!

  9. 9
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    BA77,
    Why do 1 in 3 people get cancer if the system is more advanced in programming than our best computer programs, and engineered trillions of time better than our best computer chips?

    Seems like a better job could easily have been done.

    E.G the “designer” could have implemented “QuickPar” in the genome which would allow perfect copies of the genome to be retrieved from even damaged versions with a little additional parity data.

    If the cell really does run “programs” then this is one of the more obvious to implement.

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    JemimaRacktouey argues from the old ‘theological’ position of ‘bad design’ i.e. God would not have done it that way he thinks.,,,

    Refuting The “Bad Design” Vs. Intelligent Design Argument – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4109211/

    So perhaps JemimaRacktouey would like to join Muramasa in demonstrating how any molecular machine came to be ‘cobbled together’, instead of just using a theologically based argument ?!?

    And in spite of the fact of finding molecular motors permeating the simplest of bacterial life, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of even one such motor or system.

    “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject.”
    James Shapiro – Molecular Biologist

    The following expert doesn’t even hide his very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias against intelligent design,,,

    ‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity,,,

    Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,,

    ,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’
    Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205.
    *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA

    Michael Behe – No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/

    “The response I have received from repeating Behe’s claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.”
    David Ray Griffin – retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology

    What I find very persuasive, to the suggestion that the universe was designed with life in mind, is that physicists find many processes in a cell operate at the ‘near optimal’ capacities allowed in any physical system:

    William Bialek – Professor Of Physics – Princeton University:
    Excerpt: “A central theme in my research is an appreciation for how well things “work” in biological systems. It is, after all, some notion of functional behavior that distinguishes life from inanimate matter, and it is a challenge to quantify this functionality in a language that parallels our characterization of other physical systems. Strikingly, when we do this (and there are not so many cases where it has been done!), the performance of biological systems often approaches some limits set by basic physical principles. While it is popular to view biological mechanisms as an historical record of evolutionary and developmental compromises, these observations on functional performance point toward a very different view of life as having selected a set of near optimal mechanisms for its most crucial tasks.,,,The idea of performance near the physical limits crosses many levels of biological organization, from single molecules to cells to perception and learning in the brain,,,,”
    http://www.princeton.edu/~wbialek/wbialek.html

    Molecular Biology Animations – Demo Reel
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/5915291/

    List of 40 Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines which Defy Darwinian Claims
    http://creationbydesign.wordpr.....an-claims/

    Perhaps JemimaRacktouey when you get done showing us how molecular machines came to be ‘cobbled together’ you can solve the ‘protein folding dilemma’;

    A Few Hundred Thousand Computers vs. A Single Protein Molecule – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018233

    further note:

    The Ribosome: Perfectionist Protein-maker Trashes Errors
    Excerpt: The enzyme machine that translates a cell’s DNA code into the proteins of life is nothing if not an editorial perfectionist…the ribosome exerts far tighter quality control than anyone ever suspected over its precious protein products… To their further surprise, the ribosome lets go of error-laden proteins 10,000 times faster than it would normally release error-free proteins, a rate of destruction that Green says is “shocking” and reveals just how much of a stickler the ribosome is about high-fidelity protein synthesis.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134529.htm

    etc.. etc.. etc…

  11. 11
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    BA77

    God would not have done it that way he thinks.,,,

    No, not at all. The fact is the design is so poor that 1 in 3 people get’s cancer and that could be prevented easily, if the “designer” is as skilled as you claim.

    Regardless of any other consideration, gods, atheism, deities etc etc the fact remains that in 1 in 3 people get cancer.

    So perhaps JemimaRacktouey would like to join Muramasa in demonstrating how any molecular machine came to be ‘cobbled together’, instead of just using a theologically based argument ?!?

    The fact remains that your “designed molecular machines” operate so poorly that 1 in 3 gets cancer. There’s no argument there, it’s a plan fact.

    So derive from that what you will, the fact remains.

    It’s nothing to do with “god would not have done it that way” it’s a simple fact.

    If a human designer created something mission critical with a 1 in 3 failure rate then they would soon be looking for a new job.

    Whereas you will make any excuse at all as to why that designer should keep their job because after all “the other 2 in 3 work just fine”.

    Color me unimpressed.

  12. 12
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    BA77,

    And in spite of the fact of finding molecular motors permeating the simplest of bacterial life, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of even one such motor or system.

    Could you direct me to the intelligent design explanation for even the simplest bacterial life?

    No, I thought not…

  13. 13
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    BA77

    JemimaRacktouey argues from the old ‘theological’ position of ‘bad design’ i.e. God would not have done it that way he thinks.,,,

    No, rather what I’m saying is that if your designer did design the artifacts in question it’s not very good at design.

    It’s more like a savant. Sure it can do the fantastically detailed, multilayer “command and control” networks but when it comes to a bit of simple error checking? A very poor show.

    It’s almost as if cells were cobbled together by something without foresight.

    If the designer had such foresight then it would have known that our modern lives would put stresses on our cells that lead to cancer. I guess the designer wanted that to happen.

    BA77, out of interest do you think AIDS is a punishment for teh gay?

    Or just another “perfect” design gone bad?

    What was the pre-fall purpose of HIV?

  14. 14
    Joseph says:

    JR:

    Why do 1 in 3 people get cancer if the system is more advanced in programming than our best computer programs, and engineered trillions of time better than our best computer chips?

    Due to random effects on the code.

    Look no one said the code was perfect or if it started out that way that it had to remain that way.

    Look at all the knowledge we gained due to the faults in our systems.

    In a world designed for discovery we need stuff to make us investigate.

    JR:

    No, rather what I’m saying is that if your designer did design the artifacts in question it’s not very good at design.

    Seeing you can’t design anything on the level the designer(s) did, what does that make you?

  15. 15
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    BA77

    engineered trillions of time better than our best computer chips!?!

    If the designer is so capable, why are there no animals using wheels as a mode of transport?

    It’s practically the first thing that humans invented…

    Too tough for the designer? I thought your designer was ommni-capable?

  16. 16
    Joseph says:

    JemimaRacktouey,

    ID persists due to the miserable failure of evolututionists to support their position plus our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

    So to refute ID all you need to do is produce postive evidence for the blind watchmaker, as opposed to acting like a little spoiled child.

    But I know which path you are going to take.

  17. 17
    Joseph says:

    JR:

    If the designer is so capable, why are there no animals using wheels as a mode of transport?

    Humans are animals and humans use wheels as a mode of transport.

    Man are you dumb…

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    JemimaRacktouey, actually to take your 1 in 3 people get cancer argument to its extreme, you could actually argue that 100% of the people ever born throughout history have died, and thus you could argue ‘what kind of designer would design a 100% failure rate?’ You see JemimaRacktouey I just made your argument fullproof!!! 🙂 Or is that foolproof? 🙂 But then again perhaps you are focused more on finding fault with God than you are in finding fault with your own argument?

    Hebrews 2:14-15
    “Since we, God’s children, are human beings – made of flesh and blood – He became flesh and blood too by being born in human form; for only as a human being could He die and in dying break the power of the devil who had the power of death. Only in that way could He deliver those who through fear of death have been living all their lives as slaves to constant dread.”

    As well JemimaRacktouey, pointing to overwhelming tendency of things to ‘decay’ does absolutely nothing to bolster you case that evolution has somehow magically overcome this entropic tendency;

    The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose
    Excerpt: “The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the “source” of the Second Law (Entropy).”
    http://www.pul.it/irafs/CD%20I.....enrose.pdf

    How special was the big bang? – Roger Penrose
    Excerpt: This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.
    (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 – 1989)
    http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/

    Evolution is a Fact, Just Like Gravity is a Fact! UhOh!
    Excerpt: The results of this paper suggest gravity arises as an entropic force, once space and time themselves have emerged.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....fact-uhoh/

    The Future of the Universe
    Excerpt: After all the black holes have evaporated, (and after all the ordinary matter made of protons has disintegrated, if protons are unstable), the universe will be nearly empty. Photons, neutrinos, electrons and positrons will fly from place to place, hardly ever encountering each other. It will be cold, and dark, and there is no known process which will ever change things. — Not a happy ending.
    http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/p.....uture.html

    The End Of Cosmology? – Lawrence M. Krauss and Robert J. Scherrer
    Excerpt: We are led inexorably to a very strange conclusion. The window during which intelligent observers can deduce the true nature of our expanding universe might be very short indeed.
    http://genesis1.asu.edu/0308046.pdf

    Psalm 102:25-27
    Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will have no end.

    Big Rip
    Excerpt: The Big Rip is a cosmological hypothesis first published in 2003, about the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the matter of universe, from stars and galaxies to atoms and subatomic particles, are progressively torn apart by the expansion of the universe at a certain time in the future. Theoretically, the scale factor of the universe becomes infinite at a finite time in the future.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

    Thermodynamic Argument Against Evolution – Thomas Kindell – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4168488

    Romans 8:18-21
    I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

    etc.. etc..

  19. 19
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    Joseph,

    Due to random effects on the code.

    Humans have created mechanisms to deal with such “random effects” to the extent that I can transfer TBs of data with an effective error rate of zero due to parity checking, CRC etc.

    Yet it appears that was beyond the capabilities of your purported designer, despite the fact that it has had millions of years to invent it.

    Despite the fact that the designer could peek at the source code of “QuickPar” and learn the mechanism from that – a 1 or 2% duplication of data (for parity) could ensure that future copies are error free.

    Yet your designer did not take that option.

    Look no one said the code was perfect or if it started out that way that it had to remain that way.

    In fact you’ve said exactly that on your blog and on this blog. . You’ve said that the code (design) was originally perfect and that random errors have been introduced over time. For example, here: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ment-86044

    You said:

    It would have been during the stay in the Garden of Eden- you know, before the talking snake and the eating from the “tree of knowledge”.

    It has been alleged there wasn’t any death before “the Fall”. Which, if you start with very limited populations, can be a good thing.

    No death=no random mutations causing cancer. You lose.

    Random errors that human designers are capable of fixing, but not the designer of biological life. For some reason.

    Look at all the knowledge we gained due to the faults in our systems.

    Yes, for example we know how long it takes to die from a given type of cancer, or we know the horror that some types of mutation can make a life into.

    What a great designer to think of all that for us!

    In a world designed for discovery we need stuff to make us investigate.

    Yep, I’m sure the designer could not have invented a better way for us to do that then cancer. What brilliance!

    Seeing you can’t design anything on the level the designer(s) did, what does that make you?

    If I designed life in such a way that 1 in 3 of that life would die a horrible death (and especially if I could know that in advance) I’d be fairly ashamed of myself. Would you not be?

  20. 20
    Joseph says:

    JR:

    Could you direct me to the intelligent design explanation for even the simplest bacterial life?

    Read “Signature in the Cell”- the explanation you seek is there.

  21. 21
    Joseph says:

    JR:

    Humans have created mechanisms to deal with such “random effects” to the extent that I can transfer TBs of data with an effective error rate of zero due to parity checking, CRC etc.

    Will it last for thousands, millions or billions of generations? Can it self-replicate and take care of itself?

    Also the living organisms yo are observing today are NOT teh designed organisms.

    IOW JR you hve erected a strawman.

    And a whiny snot-nosed strawman at that.

  22. 22
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    BA77

    JemimaRacktouey, actually to take your 1 in 3 people get cancer argument to its extreme, you could actually argue that 100% of the people ever born throughout history have died, and thus you could argue ‘what kind of designer would design a 100% failure rate?’

    If you measure success as “everybody dies” then the designer has a 100% success rate.

    If you measure success as “1 in 3 people who will live will suffer horribly before they die” then your designer has another 100% success rate.

    But then again perhaps you are focused more on finding fault with God than you are in finding fault with your own argument?

    I’m not making an argument. I’m stating a fact – your “designer” is not capable of doing things that I can do right now, and furthermore your “perfect” designer obviously likes cancer or there would not be so much of it.

  23. 23
    Joseph says:

    And thanks for fulfilling my prediction.

  24. 24
    Joseph says:

    JR:

    I’m stating a fact – your “designer” is not capable of doing things that I can do right now,

    Now you are lying. You couldn’t design a living organism if your life depended on it.

  25. 25
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    Joseph,

    Read “Signature in the Cell”- the explanation you seek is there.

    No, it’s not. If it was you could just summarize it here. But you can’t and you know it.

    Will it last for thousands, millions or billions of generations? Can it self-replicate and take care of itself?

    No, and according to the posts here about “genetic entropy” the human race is on it’s way out due to the inability of DNA to cope with errors. So “millions or billions of generations” is irrelevant as the ID position is that there will not be millions or billions of further generations because of generic entropy.

    Also the living organisms yo are observing today are NOT teh designed organisms.

    And yes, you know this because you have a time machine.

    Tell me Joe, were those “original designed organisms” in the garden of Eden by any chance? Pre-Fall?

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    JemimaRacktouey, you state, I’m not making an argument. I’m stating a fact – your “designer” is not capable of doing things that I can do right now,

    Really???? JemimaRacktouey???? My Oh MY what a high opinion you have of yourself! Please JemimaRacktouey do go create life in the lab and then prove to all of us that you can do it better than what we witness!

  27. 27
    Joseph says:

    JR:

    Yes, for example we know how long it takes to die from a given type of cancer, or we know the horror that some types of mutation can make a life into.

    That is due to the fact we are too stupid to cure cancer.

    And that is due to the fact that evotards are running biology.

  28. 28
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    Joseph,

    Now you are lying. You couldn’t design a living organism if your life depended on it.

    I never said I could. But I can transfer large datasets and correct errors in real time, which your designer cannot do. And if I were to design a living organism I’d be sure not to bring it to life if 1 in 3 would die of cancer.

  29. 29
    Joseph says:

    Read “Signature in the Cell”- the explanation you seek is there.

    JR:
    No, it’s not.

    Yes it is.

    Also the living organisms you are observing today are NOT teh designed organisms.

    JR:

    And yes, you know this because you have a time machine.

    Nope just science and common sense. Duh.

  30. 30
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    BA77,

    Really???? JemimaRacktouey???? My Oh MY what a high opinion you have of yourself! Please JemimaRacktouey do go create life in the lab and then prove to all of us that you can do it better than what we witness!

    I never said I could. And like I say, if I did and it had a failure rate of 1 in 3 then I’d start my design from scratch.

  31. 31
    Joseph says:

    Now you are lying. You couldn’t design a living organism if your life depended on it.

    JR:

    I never said I could.

    You sed:
    I’m stating a fact – your “designer” is not capable of doing things that I can do right now,

    That includes designing a living organism.

  32. 32
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    Joseph,

    Nope just science and common sense. Duh.

    I don’t believe you. Point me to the “science” that says the biology we see about us now is not the biology that was originally designed.

    Please note, Answers in Genesis does not count as “scientific”. Neither does the bible.

    And “common sense”? That’s what has held back science more often then not. It’s not surprising people like you prefer their “gut feeling” over evidence and reason. Evidence and reason does not support your pre-existing belief.

  33. 33
    Joseph says:

    In a universe designed for (scientific) discovery we need suffering and other imperfections.

  34. 34
    Joseph says:

    JR:

    Point me to the “science” that says the biology we see about us now is not the biology that was originally designed.

    Ummm we observe living organisms give birth to other living organisms on a daily basis. Duh.

    Do you think that when you act like a little spoiled brat that helps yor case?

  35. 35
    bornagain77 says:

    JemimaRacktouey,

    ‘I never said I could. And like I say, if I did and it had a failure rate of 1 in 3 then I’d start my design from scratch.’

    Thus you admit you have no clue as how to design life, but if you could design it you could design it better than what we witness???? And JemimaRacktouey what is key missing ingredient in substantiating your insistence that you could do it better?

  36. 36
    Joseph says:

    And JR-

    Your position has held back science more often than not.

  37. 37
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    Joseph,

    That includes designing a living organism.

    If A can do A, B, C and F can do B,E,X,G then it can be true that A can do some things that B cannot (A,C) yet cannot do some other things that F can do (E,X,G).

    So when I say that I can do things that your designer cannot do then I am not claiming that I can also do everything that your purported designer can do, only that I can do some things that it evidently cannot.

    Is that clear now ID Guy?

  38. 38
    Joseph says:

    JR sockpuppet whiner,

    It appears all you can do is whine and moan.

    When in fact all you need to do is produc positive evidence for your position.

  39. 39
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    Joseph,

    Your position has held back science more often than not.

    As it’s you saying it Joe, I’ll believe you. Normally I’d request evidence for such sweeping claims, perhaps point out the fact that the church was essentially in charge for most of human history and as such scientific development seemed to be somewhat hindered because of that but no.

    I’ll just accept your bare claim as fact. And I’ll point out that it behooves you to sort out that situation.

    Perhaps you could start by showing how CSI can be calculated on the other active thread? That way you can calculate the CSI in cancer and, er, perhaps cure it? Or something.

  40. 40
    Joseph says:

    JR sockpuppet whiner:

    So when I say that I can do things that your designer cannot

    What you say is meaningless because you cannot support it.

  41. 41
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    Joseph,

    When in fact all you need to do is produc positive evidence for your position.

    I’d hesitate to talk about “postive evidence” if I were you. After all, we can see how the “positive evidence” of CSI is going on the other thread. Nobody can agree how to calculate it and everybody is inventing reasons why it cannot be calculated.

    So much for “positive evidence” for ID.

  42. 42
    Joseph says:

    Your position has held back science more often than not.

    JR sockpuppet whiner:

    As it’s you saying it Joe, I’ll believe you.

    The fact that you cannot produce any postive evidence for your position says it all.

  43. 43
    Joseph says:

    JR:

    I’d hesitate to talk about “postive evidence” if I were you.

    If you were me I think I would have someone shoot me.

    But anyway have produced positive vidence for ID- as have others.

    OTOH all evotards like you can do is to choke on it.

    Go figure…

  44. 44
    allanius says:

    By George, GD, the comments prove you right. What we are actually witnessing, now at the end of the age, is a retreat into the fantasy realm of theory. Darwin’s theory was the great fantasy generator of the late, lamented century. This fantasy is now running up against the rock-hard reality of molecular biology. This is why the responses to Behe are so strident (and why PZ likes to curse). Stridency has nothing to do with fact-based scientific discourse, of course, but the delusional, when confronted with their delusions, tend to become violent.

  45. 45
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    Joe,

    Ummm we observe living organisms give birth to other living organisms on a daily basis. Duh.

    Then how many generations have passed since the “original design” was implemented?

    Let me guess, would it be the same number of generations as would fit into 6000 years?

  46. 46
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    Joe,

    Ummm we observe living organisms give birth to other living organisms on a daily basis. Duh.

    And from that fact you’ve worked out that if you follow up the chain you’ll find the original design? How is that logical on any level?

    allanius,

    This fantasy is now running up against the rock-hard reality of molecular biology.

    This is interesting. Could you provide a citation to such a paper on molecular biology that supports your argument?

    but the delusional, when confronted with their delusions, tend to become violent.

    This is also interesting. The previous poster on this thread (Joseph) has threatened myself and others with violence after his delusions have been pointed out to him. I can provide links if you are interested in exploring this link between delusion and violence further.

  47. 47
    GilDodgen says:

    Sending serial data across a computer network with CRC error detection is in a completely different category from what the cell must deal with. To make the analogy appropriate, the network would have to replicate itself in an often hostile environment and be left on its own indefinitely, with no human intervention to fix the hardware when it wore out or otherwise failed.

  48. 48
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    Gil

    Sending serial data across a computer network with CRC error detection is in a completely different category from what the cell must deal with.

    Is it? Then I guess all the “the cell is really a computer” analogies that are favorites in the ID camp must all be invalid. And why is it so different? Error correcting mechanisms exist, that’s claimed on a daily basis here. Yet those error correction mechanisms could have been tweaked just a little to add parity data (it’s a computer remember and computers can run programs so this is an adjustment to the programming not the infrastructure and as such would be relatively trivial) which would increase the fidelity of data transfer a hundredfold.

    to make the analogy appropriate, the network would have to replicate itself in an often hostile environment and be left on its own indefinitely

    Hmm, sounds like the internet to me.

    But now I’m confused. If finding a watch on the grass and assuming design is a useful analogy then you’ve just invalidated it with that comment. To make the watchmaker analogy appropriate watches need to reproduce. Yet the don’t and I’ve seen that analogy used over and over here. So which is it?

  49. 49
    GilDodgen says:

    Hmm, sounds like the internet to me.

    No human intervention is ever required to keep the Internet functioning? That’s news to me.

  50. 50
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    Gil

    No human intervention is ever required to keep the Internet functioning? That’s news to me.

    Hey, if ID is allowed to stretch analogies to breaking point then so am I! 🙂

    And in any case, it’s true to say that the Internet if left unmaintained would collapse but not all at once and some components would keep going for a very long time. It was designed to survive a nuclear war after all!

  51. 51
    bornagain77 says:

    So JemimaRacktouey, do you still say that the miracle of eyesight is really no miracle at all since you could design an eye better?

    the inverted retina, which evolutionists insist is “bad design”, is now found to be a ‘optimal design:

    Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity A. M. Labin and E. N. Ribak
    Physical Review Letters, 104, 158102 (April 2010)
    Excerpt: The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-354274

    Evolution Vs. The Miracle Of The Eye – Molecular Animation
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4189562/

    Optimized hardware compression, The eyes have it. – February 2011
    Excerpt: the human visual processing system is “the best compression algorithm around”.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....s-have-it/

    further note:
    https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMThmd25mdjRocQ

    “How came the Bodies of Animals to be contrived with so much Art…. Was the Eye contrived without skill in Opticks, and the Ear without Knowledge of Sounds?” – Isaac Newton

  52. 52
    bornagain77 says:

    Seeing as this is a ‘Alice In Wonderland’ thread, from the surreal file we find;

    World’s First Synthetic Microbe Accused of Copyright Infringement by James Joyce’s Estate
    Excerpt: When Craig Venter created a synthetic microbe, he inserted a passage from James Joyce. Guess who’s upset? Joyce’s estate, claiming copyright infringement:

    In order to distinguish their synthetic DNA from that naturally present in the bacterium, Venter’s team coded several famous quotes into their DNA, including one from James Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist of a Young Man: “To live, to err, to fall, to triumph, to recreate life out of life.”

    After announcing their work, Venter explained, his team received a cease and desist letter from Joyce’s estate, saying that he’d used the Irish writer’s work without permission. ”We thought it fell under fair use,” said Venter.
    http://www.neatorama.com/2011/.....es-estate/

    I wonder, since Venter’s team did not actually create any new proteins or genes but just copied what was already there, if God is also going to file for copyright infringement?

  53. 53
    Joseph says:

    Cancer- what % of cancers are caused by environmental factors? Basically meaning what we humans have done to the environment tat has come back to bite us.

    Ummm we observe living organisms give birth to other living organisms on a daily basis. Duh.

    JR:

    And from that fact you’ve worked out that if you follow up the chain you’ll find the original design?

    Did I? I was just responding to your bit of pap questioning the fact that the living organisms we now observe are not the living organisms that were originally designed.

    The previous poster on this thread (Joseph) has threatened myself and others with violence after his delusions have been pointed out to him.

    I doubt it. I doubt that you have pointed out any delusions and I bet your perceived threats are nothing more than me, calling out cowards like you.

  54. 54
    Joseph says:

    sockpuppet:

    Then how many generations have passed since the “original design” was implemented?

    I don’t know. But perhaps science can help out with that.

    Let me guess, would it be the same number of generations as would fit into 6000 years?

    Why 6000 years? Let me guess you are a drooling troll who cannot think for yourself and have to erect strawman after strawman because it makes you feel good.

  55. 55
    Joseph says:

    sockpuppet:

    Error correcting mechanisms exist, that’s claimed on a daily basis here.

    It is claimed by biologists.

    Yet those error correction mechanisms could have been tweaked just a little to add parity data (it’s a computer remember and computers can run programs so this is an adjustment to the programming not the infrastructure and as such would be relatively trivial) which would increase the fidelity of data transfer a hundredfold.

    How do you know that?

    And why do you have to blame the designer(s) for something humans caused?

    Why can’t humans just step up and take responsibility for their messed up actions?

  56. 56
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    Joseph

    I was just responding to your bit of pap questioning the fact that the living organisms we now observe are not the living organisms that were originally designed.

    You say “the fact” like it was established as an actual known fact, rather then it being precisely what ID is attempting to establish.

    So you claim that once an organism existed that was designed and not “corrupted” by any evolution, I.E Generation 1. The created “generation”.

    And as proof for that claim you use the “fact” that “the organisms we now observe are not the living organisms that were originally designed”.

    As somebody else once said, that’s not even wrong.

    Presumably you can tell me what the originally created kinds were then? And also tell me how you know that?

  57. 57
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    Joseph

    How do you know that?

    Inference from best explanation.

    Why 6000 years?

    I’ve read your blog. In it you make many claims about how the dating of the earth is unreliable and not to be trusted. And you also talk about baraminology and as that is a creationist taxonomic system inference to best explanation leads me to believe that the number 6000 is of particular significance to you.

  58. 58
    Muramasa says:

    Joseph,

    It sounds like you are stating that the designer set things up and then decided to walk away. Seems odd to spend all that time and energy designing life and then just allow it to spiral into decay.

    Maybe we should have asked for the extended maintenance plan.

  59. 59
    Joseph says:

    I was just responding to your bit of pap questioning the fact that the living organisms we now observe are not the living organisms that were originally designed.

    JR:

    You say “the fact” like it was established as an actual known fact, rather then it being precisely what ID is attempting to establish.

    It is established as an actual known fact. Read a biology textbook.

    JR:
    So you claim that once an organism existed that was designed and not “corrupted” by any evolution, I.E Generation 1. The created “generation”.

    I claimed that is a possibility.

    And as proof for that claim you use the “fact” that “the organisms we now observe are not the living organisms that were originally designed”.

    Nope, not even close.

  60. 60
    Joseph says:

    Muraasa:

    It sounds like you are stating that the designer set things up and then decided to walk away.

    That is in “No Free Lunch” also- no meddling/ intervention required.

    Seems odd to spend all that time and energy designing life and then just allow it to spiral into decay.

    That seems like a stupid “argument” to me.

  61. 61
    vjtorley says:

    Jemima Racktouey (#48)

    Thank you for your post. You wrote:

    But now I’m confused. If finding a watch on the grass and assuming design is a useful analogy then you’ve just invalidated it with that comment. To make the watchmaker analogy appropriate watches need to reproduce. Yet the don’t and I’ve seen that analogy used over and over here.

    This criticism perpetuates a myth. William Paley himself anticipated the objection that living things can reproduce but watches can’t. Suppose, said he, that we found a watch that could reproduce. That would only serve to increase our admiration for the watchmaker. Nor would it be a good answer to say that the series of watches went back forever in time, with no beginning. (At the time when Paley wrote his Natural Theology, it had not been scientifically demonstrated that the earth had a beginning, let alone the cosmos.) Paley’s contention was that the fact that the parts of the watch were all well-contrived still requires explanation, and an infinite series of watches no more explains this fact than a finite one.

    You can read Paley’s Natural Theology online at http://darwin-online.org.uk/co.....;pageseq=1 . For his argument relating to watches that can reproduce, see pages 8 to 17.

    For Paley, living things aren’t just like designed objects; they are designed objects:

    The generation of the animal no more accounts for the contrivance of the eye or ear, than, upon the supposition stated in a preceding chapter, the production of a watch by the motion and mechanism of a former watch, would account for the skill and intention evidenced in the watch, so produced; than it would account for the disposition of the wheels, the catching of their teeth, the relation of the several parts of the works to one another, and to their common end, for the suitableness of their forms and places to their offices, for their connexion, their operation, and the useful result of that operation. I do insist most strenuously upon the correctness of this comparison; that it holds as to every mode of specific propagation; and that whatever was true of the watch, under the hypothesis above-mentioned, is true of plants and animals. (Chapter IV, pages 49-50.)

    Paley also anticipated the objection that given enough time, non-viable designs would have been naturally eliminated, leaving only ones which worked. His response (on pages 63 to 66) was that if anyone tried to account for the origin of watches in this fashion, the supposition would be derided as fantastic and wildly improbable; and for living things, the supposition was no less improbable. Paley was writing 50 years before Darwin’s Origin of Species was published, so his argument may strike us as rather sketchy and in need of further elaboration, in order to refute the notion that natural selection can account for the complexity we find in living things. The work of ID proponents such as Dembski, Behe and Meyer does just that. ID critics have yet to properly digest their arguments.

    You mentioned cancer as an argument against the existence of an Intelligent Designer. Paley anticipated this line of criticism too:

    It is not necessary that a machine be perfect, in order to show with what design it was made: still less necessary, where the only question is, whether it were made with any design at all. (Chapter I, p. 5.)

    and again:

    When we are inquiring simply after the existence of an intelligent Creator, imperfection, inaccuracy, liability to disorder, occasional irregularities, may subsist in a considerable degree, without inducing any doubt into the question: just as a watch may frequently go wrong, seldom perhaps exactly right, may be faulty in some parts, defective in some, without the smallest ground of suspicion from thence arising that it was not a watch; not made; or not made for the purpose ascribed to it. When faults are pointed out, and when a question is started concerning the skill of the artist, or dexterity with which the work is executed, then indeed, in order to defend these qualities from accusation, we must be able, either to expose some intractableness and imperfection in the materials, or point out some invincible difficulty in the execution, into which imperfection and difficulty the matter of complaint may be resolved; or if we cannot do this, we must adduce such specimens of consummate art and contrivance, proceeding from the same hand, as may convince the inquirer, of the existence, in the case before him, of impediments like those which we have mentioned, although, what from the nature of the case is very likely to happen, they be unknown and unperceived by him. This we must do in order to vindicate the artist’s skill, or, at least, the perfection of it; as we must also judge of his intention, and of the provisions employed in fulfilling that intention, not from an instance in which they fail, but from the great plurality of instances in which they succeed. But, after all, these are different questions from the question of the artist’s existence: or, which is the same, whether the thing before us be a work of art or not: and the questions ought always to be kept separate in the mind. So likewise it is in the works of nature. Irregularities and imperfections are of little or no weight in the consideration, when that consideration relates simply to the existence of a Creator. When the argument respects his attributes, they are of weight; but are then to be taken in conjunction (the attention is not to rest upon them, but they are to be taken in conjunction) with the unexceptionable evidences which we possess, of skill, power, and benevolence, displayed in other instances; which evidences may, in strength; number, and variety, be such, and may so overpower apparent blemishes, as to induce us, upon the most reasonable ground, to believe, that these last ought to be referred to some cause, though we be ignorant of it, other than defect of knowledge or of benevolence in the author. (Chapter V, pages 56-58.)

    Concerning cancer, you wrote:

    Yet those error correction mechanisms could have been tweaked just a little to add parity data (it’s a computer remember and computers can run programs so this is an adjustment to the programming not the infrastructure and as such would be relatively trivial) which would increase the fidelity of data transfer a hundredfold.

    I’m sorry, but this is a poor argument. If the error correction mechanisms were perfect then even microevolution would be impossible, let alone macroevolution. Living things need to adapt to a changing environment. Some toleration of “error” is therefore essential.

    I might add that living things were not designed to last forever.

  62. 62
    Joseph says:

    JR:

    Inference from best explanation.

    That means you just made it up.

    Why 6000 years?

    JR:

    I’ve read your blog.

    Then you have mental issues because I have flat out stated there isn’t any evidence fora 6,000 year old earth and I do not accept the Bible as anything other than a collection of books.

    JR:

    In it you make many claims about how the dating of the earth is unreliable and not to be trusted.

    Supported those claims too.

    JR:

    And you also talk about baraminology and as that is a creationist taxonomic system inference to best explanation…

    I just point out that is what all the data supports. Don’t shoot the messenger.

    JR:

    leads me to believe that the number 6000 is of particular significance to you.

    Judging from your posts here tht wuld be due to the fact you have a one-track and very narrow mind. And you obviously have reding issus.

  63. 63
    bevets says:

    I am one of those rare people who has actually read the attempts of Darwinists to refute Behe’s irreducible-complexity argument, and the so-called refutations are always the same: thoroughly speculative fantasies about “co-option” that don’t withstand even the most trivial analytical scrutiny, and protein-sequence similarities that are perfectly irrelevant to the question at hand.

    How to do it

  64. 64
    Joseph says:

    Thanks bevets- I just used that for a blog about revealing evo methodology… 😎

  65. 65
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    vjtorley

    If the error correction mechanisms were perfect then even microevolution would be impossible, let alone macroevolution. Living things need to adapt to a changing environment. Some toleration of “error” is therefore essential.,

    I’m not convinced by this argument. It’s perfectly possible to have adaptation without runaway uncontrolled growth. It’s perfectly possible to have better better error correction (1 in 3!) and still allow sufficient “error” for adaptation.

    If the cell “is a computer” and “runs programs” then these are just relatively minor adaptations to existing code. Minor compared to what already exists that is.

    So I’m to believe that the current error correction mechanisms were designed specifically to strike a balance between cancer (1 in 3!) in humans (the designers target species according to some) and the ability to adapt to changing environments?

    If humans were designed would it not have been better to leave out that part – after all, we don’t really need to evolve any more do we?

    If we’re the “target” on this privileged planet then what’s with the 1 in 3 cancer rate designer guy? We don’t need it no more! We’re here!

  66. 66
    niwrad says:

    Jemima Racktouey

    You vilify the designs of God and in the same time you glorify the designs of humans.

    It is a logically contradictory position. In fact in a causal hierarchy where A designs B and B designs C necessarily A is higher than B and B is higher than C. You cannot vilify the higher and glorify the lower.

  67. 67
    Joseph says:

    JR:

    If we’re the “target” on this privileged planet then what’s with the 1 in 3 cancer rate designer guy?

    It is due to us- most of it anyway. Now it is up to us to fix it.

    Simple a that.

    And yes we need variation- variation good, putting all eggs in one basket bad.

    So here we have a sock puppet coming in here playing the cancer card when in fact most cancers are due to our own bad behaviors coming back to bite us.

    And that, according to said sock puppet, is the designer’s fault.

  68. 68
    Joseph says:

    JR:

    If humans were designed would it not have been better to leave out that part – after all, we don’t really need to evolve any more do we?

    We need to learn from our mistakes. We also need to take responsibility for our mistakes.

    Environments change and we have to be able to change to. So we need to “evolve”.

  69. 69
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    Joseph

    Environments change and we have to be able to change to. So we need to “evolve”.

    Really? You are starting to sound just like a Darwinist.

    So, if we need to “evolve” where does ID come into it? Forget about that did ya?

  70. 70
    JemimaRacktouey says:

    Joe,

    And yes we need variation- variation good, putting all eggs in one basket bad.

    That would be variation within a “kind” only, right?

  71. 71
    Joseph says:

    Environments change and we have to be able to change to. So we need to “evolve”.

    JR

    Really? You are starting to sound just like a Darwinist.

    So you admit that you are ignorant- baraminology allows for change.

    JR:

    So, if we need to “evolve” where does ID come into it?

    Origins and according to Richar Dawkins that means we are looking at a totaly different type of biology.

    JR:

    Forget about that did ya?

    I guess you still have that reading problem…

  72. 72
    Joseph says:

    JR:
    That would be variation within a “kind” only, right?

    Is there any evidence for any other kind of variation?

  73. 73
    GilDodgen says:

    I’ve apparently done it again.

    I seem to have a propensity for inducing the following phenomenon: I state the obvious that should be apparent to anyone familiar with contemporary biological science, basic mathematics, and rational thinking about origins. Darwinists inevitably completely lose their minds and go into a state of hysterical apoplexy.

    One must ask himself the following question, Why the hysterical reaction to such obvious truth?

    I can answer that question: Their entire worldview is based upon a nihilistic, materialistic lie that is in a state of complete scientific collapse. Accepting the fact that they have been wrong about everything that ultimately matters would mean that, upon their deathbeds, they would have to admit that their lives have been ultimately pointless, meaningless, and wasted.

    Thus, they feel required to drag down others into the depths of their materialistic, nihilistic worldview. Never mind evidence or logic.

    Misery loves company.

  74. 74
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Here are 50+ gems to drive Darwinists nuts with (or nuttier with 🙂 )
    My Top 50 Problems with Evolution
    http://creationbydesign.wordpr.....evolution/

  75. 75
    mggarrison says:

    “I can provide links if you are interested in exploring this link between delusion and violence further.”

    That is a comfort.

Leave a Reply