This is the kind of headline I’d expect to see from the Onion. If only it were so…
Comments
Religion has a pretty bloody history too, bud.Joealtle
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
Vestigial organs are not necessarily a completely useless organ, but an organ that has lost its major function and now only performs a minor function.
Blind mole rat has eyes that are covered by a flap of skin
Emu and ostrich (flightless birds) have wings
Blind fish still have eyesJoealtle
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
The unmitigated horror visited upon man, by state sponsored atheism, would be hard to exaggerate,,, Here's what happens when Atheists/evolutionists/non-Christians take control of Government:
“169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide]
I BACKGROUND
2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide]
3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide
II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS
4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime
III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS
8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military
9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges
11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing
13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse
IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS
15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea
16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico
17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia”
This is, in reality, probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there were. It also doesn’t count all the millions of abortions from around the world.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
Chairman MAO: Genocide Master
“…Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I’m now trying to get word out that I’ve had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. I’m now convinced that that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin….”
http://wadias.in/site/arzan/blog/chairman-mao-genocide-master/
footnote: the body count for abortion is now over 50 million in America since it was legalized, by judicial fiat not by public decree, in 1973 (legislation by liberal justices from the bench!):
Abortion Statistics
http://www.voiceofrevolution.com/2009/01/18/abortion-statistics/
Charles Darwin stated this...
‘At some future period … the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous [Having or suggesting human form and appearance] apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope … the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla"
And Darwinism, despite denial from atheists, has in fact had horrendous consequences on society;
Documentary Ties Darwin to Disastrous Social Consequences - What Hath Darwin Wrought? - Sept. 2010
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201009.htm#20100926a
If Darwinists want to insist that all these murderous consequences, and ethical implications, of Darwinism are just a mistake of the past will someone please inform Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, of that development:
Australia Awards Infanticide Backer Peter Singer Its Highest Honor – 2012
Excerpt: Singer is best known for advocating the ethical propriety of infanticide. But that isn’t nearly the limit of his odious advocacy. Here is a partial list of some other notable Singer bon mots:
- Singer supports using cognitively disabled people in medical experiments instead of animals that have a higher “quality of life.”
- Singer does not believe humans reach “full moral status” until after the age of two.Singer supports non-voluntary euthanasia of human “non-persons.”
- Singer has defended bestiality.
- Singer started the “Great Ape Project” that would establish a “community of equals” among humans, gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, and orangutans.
- Singer supports health-care rationing based on “quality of life.”
– Singer has questioned whether “the continuance of our species is justifiable,” since it will result in suffering.
– Singer believes “speciesism” — viewing humans as having greater value than animals — is akin to racism.
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/06/12/australia-awards-infanticide-backer-peter-singer-its-highest-honor/
The Population Control Holocaust - 2012
Excerpt:,,, the belief that the human race is a horde of vermin whose unconstrained aspirations and appetites endanger the natural order, and that tyrannical measures are necessary to constrain humanity. The founding prophet of modern antihumanism is Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), who offered a pseudoscientific basis for the idea that human reproduction always outruns available resources. Following this pessimistic and inaccurate assessment of the capacity of human ingenuity to develop new resources, Malthus advocated oppressive policies that led to the starvation of millions in India and Ireland.
While Malthus’s argument that human population growth invariably leads to famine and poverty is plainly at odds with the historical evidence, which shows global living standards rising with population growth, it nonetheless persisted and even gained strength among intellectuals and political leaders in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Its most pernicious manifestation in recent decades has been the doctrine of population control, famously advocated by ecologist Paul Ehrlich, whose bestselling 1968 antihumanist tract The Population Bomb has served as the bible of neo-Malthusianism. In this book, Ehrlich warned of overpopulation and advocated that the American government adopt stringent population control measures, both domestically and for the Third World countries that received American foreign aid. (Ehrlich, it should be noted, is the mentor of and frequent collaborator with John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor.),,,
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust
Further notes:
The following video shows that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court, not by public decree, in 1963. Whereas the SAT scores for private Christian schools have consistently remained at the top, or near the top, spot in the world:
The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped - David Barton - The Consequences Of The Removal Of Prayer From Public School - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930
To Pray or Not To Pray - David Barton - Graphs
http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/graphs.html
I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily…. All my discoveries have been made in an answer to prayer. — Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), considered by many to be the greatest scientist of all timebornagain77
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
Moreover the supposed Junk regions, once they were looked at more closely, were, amazingly, found to be 'more functional' than the protein coding regions:
Astonishing DNA complexity update
Excerpt: The untranslated regions (now called UTRs, rather than ‘junk’) are far more important than the translated regions (the genes), as measured by the number of DNA bases appearing in RNA transcripts. Genic regions are transcribed on average in five different overlapping and interleaved ways, while UTRs are transcribed on average in seven different overlapping and interleaved ways. Since there are about 33 times as many bases in UTRs than in genic regions, that makes the ‘junk’ about 50 times more active than the genes.
http://creation.com/astonishing-dna-complexity-update
Junk No More: ENCODE Project Nature Paper Finds "Biochemical Functions for 80% of the Genome" - Casey Luskin September 5, 2012
Excerpt: The Discover Magazine article further explains that the rest of the 20% of the genome is likely to have function as well:
"And what's in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney, the project's Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described "cat-herder-in-chief". He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion. "It's likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent," says Birney. "We don't really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn't that useful.""
We will have more to say about this blockbuster paper from ENCODE researchers in coming days, but for now, let's simply observe that it provides a stunning vindication of the prediction of intelligent design that the genome will turn out to have mass functionality for so-called "junk" DNA. ENCODE researchers use words like "surprising" or "unprecedented." They talk about of how "human DNA is a lot more active than we expected." But under an intelligent design paradigm, none of this is surprising. In fact, it is exactly what ID predicted.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/junk_no_more_en_1064001.html
Incredibly, many leading evolutionists (Ayala in 2010; Francis Collins in 2010) before the ENCODE findings of 2012, insisted that most of the genome, which does not directly code for proteins, was useless 'Junk DNA'.
Francis Collins, Darwin of the Gaps, and the Fallacy Of Junk DNA - Wells, Meyer, Sternberg - video
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/francis_collins_is_one_of040361.html
Some materialists have tried to get around the failed prediction of Junk DNA by saying evolution never really predicted Junk DNA. This following site list several studies and quotes by leading evolutionists that expose their falsehood in denying the functionless Junk DNA predictions that were made by leading evolutionists:
Functionless Junk DNA Predictions By Leading Evolutionists
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc8z67wz_24c5f7czgm
Here is quote that clearly denotes the anti-scientific stance of neo-Darwinism;
'Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!'
Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), P.No.168-69. - Received The Nobel Prize in Physics 1998
And let's not forget the horror of the holocaust which, though Darwinists are in complete denial of this fact of history, Richard Weikart has done a excellent job in tying evolutionary reasoning directly to the 'scientific justification' behind the holocaust:
From Darwin To Hitler - Richard Weikart - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A
Can Darwinists Condemn Hitler and Remain Consistent with Their Darwinism? - Richard Weikart -October 27, 2011
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/can_darwinists_condemn_hitler052331.html
How Evolutionary Ethics Influenced Hitler and Why It Matters - Richard Weikart: - January 2012
http://www.credomag.com/2012/01/05/how-evolutionary-ethics-influenced-hitler-and-why-it-matters/
How Darwin's Theory Changed the World - Rejection of Judeo-Christian values
Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide.
“The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75).
Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.).
http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/darwin-theory-changed-world.htm
"Christian" Atrocities compared to Atheists Atrocities - Dinesh D'Souza - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zkbornagain77
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
Well Joealtle, I certainly do not condone many of the abuses conducted under the name of Christianity by those in power, but let's be fair here if we are going to start selectively nitpicking, Atheists by far have had, by far, the most stifling effect on science and culture:
Neo-Darwinism’s negative effect on science and society
Materialists like to claim evolution is indispensable to experimental biology and led the way to many breakthroughs in medicine, Yet in a article entitled "Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology", this expert author begs to differ.
"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
Philip S. Skell - (the late) Professor at Pennsylvania State University.
http://www.discovery.org/a/2816
Podcasts and Article of Dr. Skell
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/giving_thanks_for_dr_philip_sk040981.html
Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution - Jonathan Wells - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028096
'It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult.'
- Francis Crick - co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953 - atheist
Intelligent Design and Medical Research - video
http://www.metacafe.com/w/7906908
Darwinian Medicine and Proximate and Evolutionary Explanations - Michael Egnor - neurosurgeon - June 2011
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/darwinian_medicine_and_proxima047701.html
In fact, as to the somewhat minor extent evolutionary reasoning has influenced medical diagnostics, it has led to much ‘medical malpractice’ in the past:
Evolution's "vestigial organ" argument debunked
Excerpt: "The appendix, like the once 'vestigial' tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body's immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary 'left over,' many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice" (David Menton, Ph.D., "The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution," St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1).
"Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery" (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137).
The tailbone, properly known as the coccyx, is another supposed example of a vestigial structure that has been found to have a valuable function—especially regarding the ability to sit comfortably. Many people who have had this bone removed have great difficulty sitting.
http://www.ucg.org/science/god-science-and-bible-evolutions-vestigial-organ-argument-debunked/
Moreover, besides evolutionary reasoning NOT 'producing new discoveries and increasing understanding', and besides the medical malpractice that evolutionary reasoning led to, is the fact that it can be forcefully argued that evolutionary reasoning, the more dogmatically it has been clung to, has in fact inhibited 'producing new discoveries and increasing understanding'. This is clearly illustrated in the junk DNA fiasco that evolutionary reasoning has foisted off on biology. Indeed imposed on it prior to investigation for any functionality in the non-coding regions of DNA;
Is Panda's Thumb Suppressing the Truth about Junk DNA?
Excerpt: Dr. Pellionisz sent me an e-mail regarding his recent experiences at Panda's Thumb. Pellionisz reports that Panda's Thumb is refusing to print his stories about how he has personally witnessed how the Darwinian consensus rejected suggestions that "junk" DNA had function. Dr. Pellionisz's e-mail recounts how some rogue Darwinian biologists have believed that "junk" DNA had function, but it also provides historical proof that this went against the prevailing consensus, and thus such suggestions that "junk"-DNA had function were ignored or rejected by most Darwinian scientists.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/07/is_pandas_thumb_supressing_the003947.html
International HoloGenomics Society - "Junk DNA Diseases"
Excerpt: uncounted millions of people died miserable deaths while scientists were looking for the “gene” causing their illnesses – and were not even supposed to look anywhere but under the lamp illuminating only 1.3% of the genome (the genes)."
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-discovery-institute-needs-to-be-destroyed/#comment-357177bornagain77
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT
Either way the church put a man on house arrest becuase he went against its beliefs. You can try to spin it however you want, but thats what happened.Joealtle
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
Joealtle, you REALLY need to read up on stuff before you go off like a little materialistic robot repeating falsehoods you have been taught:
Contest Winner! - Barry Arrington - July 27, 2011
Please read the section titled 'Primer on the Galileo Affair' to see how far the popular myth of 'science vs. religion' is from the actual reality of the entire Galileo affair:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/contest-winner/
Why Galileo was Wrong, Even Though He was Right - Cornelius Hunter
Excerpt: The Galileo Affair is far more complex than the simple-minded warfare thesis supposes. Yes Pope John Paul II issued a declaration in 1992 acknowledging the church's errors. And the church was no doubt mistaken. But the church's action in the Galileo Affair was far more complex than simply opposing a scientific finding out of religious conviction,,,
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-galileo-was-wrong-even-though-he.html
4a. New studies on Galileo are coming out, based on new research in the archives of the Roman Inquisition--and they support my interpretation in Saving Leonardo.
"The newer view is that Galileo made needless trouble for himself by being impolitic...The Church wanted, as today’s intelligent designers now say, to be allowed to 'teach the controversy'—to teach the Copernican and Aristotelian views as rival hypotheses, both plausible, both unproved. All Galileo had to do was give the Church a break and say that you could see it that way if you wanted to. He wouldn’t give it a break."
Right! As I (Nancy Pearcey) wrote in Saving Leonardo: "The typical story is that Galileo was persecuted because he championed the heliocentric theory of Copernicus. But the truth is that no one at the time objected to Copernicanism—as long as it was used merely as a calculating device. There was not enough empirical data yet to decide between an earth-centered and a sun-centered system. Both systems worked equally well for navigation, which was the main practical use of astronomy at the time. Most people were willing to use whichever astronomical theory worked best, without worrying about whether it was physically true.
Galileo attracted controversy because he insisted that the Copernican system was not just a useful calculating tool but physically true. The central question at stake was thus the status of mathematical truth: Does mathematics tell us what is true in the physical world? This was a philosophical question, not a theological one. And Galileo’s main opponents were not churchmen but the Aristotelian philosophers in the universities. For them, mathematics was not high on the list of what makes the world what it is. The essential feature of Aristotle’s universe was not quantity but quality—hot and cold, wet and dry, soft and hard. In the universities, mathematics ranked much lower than physics. A mere mathematician was not supposed to dictate to the physicists what theory they could hold....
The Galileo saga is typically told as a conflict between science and religion. But in reality it was a conflict among Christians over the correct philosophy of nature. Was it Aristotle’s quality or Galileo’s quantity? Galileo’s victory was the triumph of the idea that the nature is constructed on a mathematical blueprint."
- Nancy Pearcey - March, 2013bornagain77
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
Look, try to keep your posts down in size, I mean cmon. Make your point and be done with it. I know you guys like to copy and paste huge amounts of irrelevant information to overwhelm your opponents but could you please keep it to under a PhD thesis?
Anyways, whats your point?
The church silenced galileo for his ideas that contradicted the church's beliefs. Theres no way around it. Religion all too often limits the progress of society.Joealtle
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
Well funny that it took the purging of pagan Greek influences before modern science took firm root, but as to Galileo,,
The Galileo Affair and Life/Consciousness as the true “Center of the Universe”
The Galileo affair has certainly turned out to be far different, and far more nuanced, than the simplistic 'science vs. religion' narrative that is told in popular culture today.
Often times an atheist will try to deride a person's Christian belief by saying something along the lines of, 'Well, we also don't believe that the sun orbits the earth any longer do we?', trying to mock the person's Christian belief as some type of superstitious belief that is left over from the Dark Ages that had blocked the progress of science. Yet, those atheists who say such things fail to realize that the geocentric (Earth centered) model of the solar system was overturned by three devout Christians, Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo. Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, the three primary scientists involved in overturning the geocentric model, were all devout Christians and it certainly was not an atheist, nor some group of atheists, nor some other religion, involved in overturning the geocentric model. Johann Kepler (1571-1630), a devout Lutheran, was the mathematician who mathematically verified Copernicus's, a loyal Catholic, heliocentric model for the solar system. Diana Severance (PhD, Rice University), a historian with broad experience teaching in universities and seminaries, stated this about Kepler
"About the time that the Reformation was proclaiming Christ rather than the pope as the head of the Church, science was announcing that the sun rather than the earth was the center of our planetary system. A leader in this changing scientific perspective was the German scientist Johann Kepler.,,, Throughout his scientific work, Kepler never sought any glory for himself, but always sought to bring glory to God. At the end of his life his prayer was: I give you thanks, Creator and God, that you have given me this joy in thy creation, and I rejoice in the works of your hands. See I have now completed the work to which I was called. In it I have used all the talents you have lent to my spirit."[1]
In fact, on discovering the laws of planetary motion, Johann Kepler declared this very 'unscientific' thought:
‘O God, I am thinking your thoughts after you!’ [2]
In 1610, it was the Italian scientist Galileo Galilee (1564-1642), who was also a dedicated Christian to his dying day despite his infamous, and widely misunderstood, conflict with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church [3,4, 4a], who empirically verified the Catholic Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus's (1473-1543) heliocentric theory. Thus it is a undeniable fact of history that it was men of the Christian faith, and no other faith (especially the atheistic faith), who overturned the geocentric model. In fact, it can also be forcefully argued that modern science had its foundation laid during the protestant reformation of the 16th century, and also when the Catholic church had its own private 'mini-reformation' from pagan Greek influences over its central teachings during this era. The main point being that it can be forcefully argued that modern scientific thought itself, of a rational, approachable, intelligible, universe, a universe that could dare be comprehended by the mind of man, was brought to a sustained maturity when a more pure Christian influence was brought to maturity in the Christian church(es) of western culture and the stifling pagan influences were purged from it.[5,6,7,8,9]
The heliocentric theory was hotly debated at that time, for it proposed a revolutionary idea for the 1600's stating all the planets revolved around the sun. Many people of the era had simply, and wrongly, presumed everything in the universe revolved around the earth (geocentric theory), since from their limited perspective everything did seem to be revolving around the earth. As well the geocentric model seems, at first glance, to agree with the religious sensibilities of being made in God's image, although the Bible never actually directly states the earth is the 'center of the universe'.[9a]
Job 26:7
“He stretches the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing”
Galileo had improved upon the recently invented telescope. With this improved telescope he observed many strange things about the solar system. This included the phases of Venus as she revolved around the sun and the fact Jupiter had her own satellites (moons) which revolved around her. Thus, Galileo wrote and spoke about what had become obvious to him; Copernicus was right, the planets do indeed revolve around the sun. It is now commonly believed that man was cast down from his special place in the grand scheme of things, for the Earth beneath his feet no longer appeared to be the 'center of the universe', and indeed the Earth is now commonly believed by many people to be reduced to nothing but an insignificant speck of dust in the vast ocean of space (mediocrity principle). Yet actually the earth became exalted in the eyes of many people of that era, with its supposed removal from the center of the universe, since centrality in the universe had a very different meaning in those days. A meaning that equated being at the center of the universe with being at the 'bottom' of the universe, or being in the 'cesspool' of the universe, as this following quote makes clear.
In addition, contrary to what is commonly believed, we now know that in the eyes of its contemporaries, the Copernican Revolution glorified the Earth, making it an object worthy of study, in contrast to the preceding view, which demeaned the Earth. Ironically, the Copernican Revolution is almost invariably portrayed today as having demoted the Earth from a position at the center of the universe, the main concern of God, to being merely one of the planets. Danielson(2001) made a compelling case that this portrayal is the opposite of what really happened, i.e., that before the Copernican Revolution, Earth was seen not as being at the center, but rather at the bottom, the cesspool where all filth and corruption fell and accumulated. [10]
Yet contrary to what is commonly believed by many people today of the earth being nothing but an insignificant speck of dust lost in a vast ocean of space, there is actually a strong case that can now be made for the earth being central in the universe once again.
In what I consider an absolutely fascinating discovery, Einstein's General Relativity has shown that 4-dimensional (4D) space-time, along with all energy and matter, was created in the 'Big Bang' and continues to 'expand equally in all places':
There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell. [11]
Thus from a 3-dimensional (3D) perspective, any particular 3D spot in the universe is to be considered just as 'center of the universe' as any other particular spot in the universe is to be considered 'center of the universe'. This centrality found for any 3D place in the universe is because the universe is a 4D expanding hypersphere, analogous in 3D to the surface of an expanding balloon. All points on the surface are moving away from each other, and every point is central, if that’s where you live.
So in a holistic sense, when taking into consideration the 'Privileged Planet principle' [12] which overturned the mediocrity principle, and which gives strong indication that the Earth is uniquely suited to host complex life in this universe, it may now be possible for the earth to be legitimately, once again, considered 'central in the universe'. This intriguing possibility, for the earth to once again be considered central, is clearly illustrated by the fact the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), remaining from the creation of the universe, due to the 4-Dimensional space-time of General Relativity, forms a sphere around the earth. I find the best way to get this 'centrality of the Earth in the universe'' point across is to visualize it first hand. Thus I reference the first few minutes of this following video to clearly get this 'centrality' point across:
Centrality of The Earth Within The 4-Dimensional Space-Time of General Relativity - video
http://www.metacafe.com/w/8421879
Moreover, this 'circle' of the CMBR that is found by modern science to encompass the Earth, from the remnant of the creation event that brought the entire universe instantaneously into being, was actually predicted in the Bible centuries earlier:
Proverbs 8:27 (King James Version)
"When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he drew a circle upon the face of the depth:"
Proverbs 8:27 (New International Version)
"I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,"
But as compelling as it is to use the privileged planet principle, in conjunction with the centrality of the Earth in the 4-Dimensional (4D) space-time of General Relativity, to establish the centrality of the Earth in the universe, this method of establishing centrality for the earth falls short of explaining 'true centrality' in the universe and still does not fully explain exactly why the CMBR forms an ‘almost’ perfect sphere around the Earth. The primary reason for why the higher dimensional 4D space-time, governing the expansion of this 3-Dimensional universe, is insufficient to maintain 3D symmetry, all by itself, becomes clear if one tries to imagine radically different points of observation in the universe. Since the universe is shown to have only (approximately) 10^79 atoms to work with, once a person tries to imagine keeping perfect 3D symmetry, from radically different points of observation within the CMBR sphere, a person quickly finds that it is geometrically impossible to maintain such 3D symmetry of centrality within the CMBR sphere with finite 3D material particles to work with for radically different 3D points of 'imagined observation' in the universe. As well, fairly exhaustive examination of the General Relativity equations themselves, seems to, at least from as far as I can follow the math, mathematically prove the insufficiency of General Relativity to account for the 'completeness' of 4D space-time within the sphere of the CMBR from differing points of observation in the universe. [13] But if the 4D space-time of General Relativity is insufficient to explain 'true 3D centrality' in the universe, what else is since we certainly observe centrality for ourselves within the sphere of the CMBR? Quantum Mechanics gives us the reason why. 'True centrality' in the universe is achieved by 'universal quantum wave collapse of photons', to each point of 'conscious observation' in the universe, and is the only answer that has adequate sufficiency to explain 'true 3D centrality' that we witness for ourselves within the CMBR of the universe. Moreover because of advances in Quantum Mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality.
2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. [14]
4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3D state is centered on each individual conscious observer in the universe, whereas, 4D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism, Christian Theism in particular, offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe. [15]
Psalm 33:13-15
The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.
As to the fact that, as far as the solar system itself is concerned, the earth is not 'central', I find the fact that this seemingly insignificant earth is found to revolve around the much more massive sun to be a very fitting 'poetic reflection' of our true spiritual condition. Please reflect on this for a moment, in regards to God's 'kingdom of light', are we not to keep in mind our lives are to be centered on the much higher purpose which is tied to our future in God's kingdom of light? Are we not to avoid placing too much emphasis on what this world has to offer, since it is so much more insignificant than what heaven has to offer?
Matthew 16:26
And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul?
Here is a quote from evangelist Louie Giglio which I think captures this 'poetic reflection' of our true spiritual condition
You could fit 262 trillion earths inside (the star of) Betelgeuse. If the Earth were a golfball that would be enough to fill up the Superdome (football stadium) with golfballs,,, 3000 times!!! When I heard that as a teenager that stumped me right there because most of my praying had been advising God, correcting God, suggesting things to God, drawing diagrams for God, reviewing things with God, counseling God. - Louie Giglio [16]
Thus, as is extremely fitting from the basic Christian view of reality, the centrality of the world in the universe, comparatively speaking, is found to be rather negligible, save for 'the privileged planet' principle which reflects God's craftsmanship, whereas the centrality of each individual 'conscious soul' in the universe is found to be primary,,,
,,,"Is anything worth more than your soul?"
Matthew 16:26
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHAcvrc913SgnPcDohwkPnN4kMJ9EDX-JJSkjc4AXmA/editbornagain77
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
Wow you are great at copy and pasting! But anyways, heres a real history of the scientific method:
Before the mid-15th century: learning was based on a mix of beliefs from ancient Greece and the catholic church
Renaissance: scholars began to break away from this thinking, using reason as the measure for all things
Galileo: first great scientist of the modern era to rely on observation and experiment, he was soon to be put on papal trial in the 1630s by the church for his heliocentric ideas, he was forced to recant and put in house arrest, refresh my memory does the sun revolve around the earth or it the other way around? Hmmm
Also the theory of everything has nothing to do with religion, it is a theory that seeks to unite the four fundamental forces, none of which are religious in nature last I checked at leastJoealtle
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
Joealtle though there is much to disagree with in what you wrote, let's focus on your first statement:
First off, no need to tell me about the scientific method, I am well aware of it and how it works.
Really? can you tell me what philosophical presuppositions were necessary to make the scientific method so successful for modern science?
The Origin of Science
Modern experimental science was rendered possible, Jaki has shown, as a result of the Christian philosophical atmosphere of the Middle Ages. Although a talent for science was certainly present in the ancient world (for example in the design and construction of the Egyptian pyramids), nevertheless the philosophical and psychological climate was hostile to a self-sustaining scientific process. Thus science suffered still-births in the cultures of ancient China, India, Egypt and Babylonia. It also failed to come to fruition among the Maya, Incas and Aztecs of the Americas. Even though ancient Greece came closer to achieving a continuous scientific enterprise than any other ancient culture, science was not born there either. Science did not come to birth among the medieval Muslim heirs to Aristotle. ….
The psychological climate of such ancient cultures, with their belief that the universe was infinite and time an endless repetition of historical cycles, was often either hopelessness or complacency (hardly what is needed to spur and sustain scientific progress); and in either case there was a failure to arrive at a belief in the existence of God the Creator and of creation itself as therefore rational and intelligible. Thus their inability to produce a self-sustaining scientific enterprise.
If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation.
These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html
Christ and Science - Stanley L. Jaki
http://www.realviewbooks.com/catalogb.html#chriscie
Moreover Joealtle, contrary to what you would prefer to believe in your atheistic/materialistic worldview, not only was a Christian perspective necessary to firmly ground modern science in the first place, but it can also be forcefully argued that a Christian perspective brings a successful closure to man's quest for a mathematical 'theory of everything':
The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video
http://vimeo.com/34084462
Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age - Pictures, Articles and Videos
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfg
bornagain77
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
First off, no need to tell me about the scientific method, I am well aware of it and how it works.
Second, you posted a whole bunch of ideas on quantum theory...we are talking about evolution and abiogenesis, not only that but quantum mechanics is barely even understood. I asked for scientific evidence that supports ID, you gave none, just a bunch off peoples thoughts on consciousness and what it means for science, pretty a philosophical standpoint.
Also, near death experiments? Cmon man really? The only thing scientific you mentioned about that was how half the people experience seeing their body from a different perspective. Id is based on an absence of facts, "science doesnt know how it came about, therefore it must have been designed," is an argument from ignorance.Joealtle
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
For those who have already heard that song from Evanescence, here is another from her that I really enjoyed:
Evanescence - My Heart Is Broken
http://www.vevo.com/watch/evanescence/my-heart-is-broken/USWV41100052bornagain77
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
Joealtle you request:
Some articles using the scientific method to support ID would be great.
Lets look at the,,
Steps of the Scientific Method
The Question
Your science fair project starts with a question. This might be based on an observation you have made or a particular topic that interests you. Think what you hope to discover during your investigation, what question would you like to answer? Your question needs to be about something you can measure and will typically start with words such as what, when, where, how or why.
Background Research
Talk to your science teacher and use resources such as books and the Internet to perform background research on your question. Gathering information now will help prepare you for the next step in the Scientific Method.
Hypothesis
Using your background research and current knowledge, make an educated guess that answers your question. Your hypothesis should be a simple statement that expresses what you think will happen.
Experiment
Create a step by step procedure and conduct an experiment that tests your hypothesis. The experiment should be a fair test that changes only one variable at a time while keeping everything else the same. Repeat the experiment a number of times to ensure your original results weren’t an accident.
Data
Collect data and record the progress of your experiment. Document your results with detailed measurements, descriptions and observations in the form of notes, journal entries, photos, charts and graphs.
Observations
Describe the observations you made during your experiment. Include information that could have affected your results such as errors, environmental factors and unexpected surprises.
Conclusions
Analyze the data you collected and summarize your results in written form. Use your analysis to answer your original question, do the results of your experiment support or oppose your hypothesis?
Communication
Present your findings in an appropriate form, whether it’s a final report for a scientific journal, a poster for school or a display board for a science fair competition.
http://www.sciencekids.co.nz/projects/thescientificmethod.html
Now Joealtle, while I have already mentioned the fact that neo-Darwinism has no observational evidence that purely material processes can produce molecular machines but intelligent design does have such evidence, (in fact every time you write a post Joealtle you supply evidence that intelligence can produce information, whereas no one has ever observed material processes doing what you can easily do!), I would like to focus on something more fundamental to the scientific method. On something that undermines the reductive materialistic foundation of neo-Darwinism every time a experiment is conducted. I would like to focus specifically on the step of 'observation' within the scientific method. When we focus on observation some very interesting things pop out. For instance, what exactly is it about 'observation' in the double slit experiment that forces the wave to collapse?
Quantum Mechanics - Double Slit Experiment. Is anything really physical? (Prof. Anton Zeilinger) - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayvbKafw2g0
Now much ink has been spilt over this 'anomaly' in the double slit experiment, with materialists having to retreat into the bizarre 'many worlds interpretation' of Everett, David Deutsch and others, an interpretation that winds up in epistemological failure, (i.e. imagine Mother Teresa an axe murderer in some parallel universe), but for me the defining experiment that put the nail in the coffin for such speculation from materialists, for infinite parallel universes, was Wigner's Quantum Symmetries experiment for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1963:
Eugene Wigner
Excerpt: When I returned to Berlin, the excellent crystallographer Weissenberg asked me to study: why is it that in a crystal the atoms like to sit in a symmetry plane or symmetry axis. After a short time of thinking I understood:,,,, To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another.
http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm
i.e. In the experiment the 'world' (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a 'privileged center'. This is since the 'matrix', which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is 'observer-centric' in its origination! Here are a couple of comments from Eugene Wigner on the implications of this experiment:
"It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays"; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.
"It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" -
Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961
Max Planck, the father of quantum mechanics, echos Wigner's observation:
“No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
(Max Planck, as cited in de Purucker, Gottfried. 1940. The Esoteric Tradition. California: Theosophical University Press, ch. 13).
As does another luminary in Quantum Mechanics, Erwin Schroedinger
“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
(Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.)
Many other experiments have now come along in recent years to bolster Wigner's claim that "the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality":
Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit
In fact the evidence is so strong that the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality.
2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
And consciousness being central means being geometrically central in the sphere of the Cosmic Background Radiation of the entire universe, not just metaphorically central:
The Galileo Affair and Life/Consciousness as the true "Center of the Universe"
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHAcvrc913SgnPcDohwkPnN4kMJ9EDX-JJSkjc4AXmA/edit
Now Joealtle you may object that we have no 'observational evidence' for consciousness existing outside the confines of time and space but you would be wrong in that objection. We have a near death experience, from a Harvard neurosurgeon no less, that provides us observational evidence for consciousness outside the confines of time and space. Before you object that we cannot use Near Death Experiences as observational evidence for a position I would like to point out something to you,,,
Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012
Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,,
The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species (or origin of life), which is never.,,,
The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn.
Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html
"A recent analysis of several hundred cases showed that 48% of near-death experiencers reported seeing their physical bodies from a different visual perspective. Many of them also reported witnessing events going on in the vicinity of their body, such as the attempts of medical personnel to resuscitate them (Kelly et al., 2007)."
Kelly, E. W., Greyson, B., & Kelly, E. F. (2007). Unusual experiences near death and related phenomena. In E. F. Kelly, E. W. Kelly, A. Crabtree, A. Gauld, M. Grosso, & B. Greyson, Irreducible mind (pp. 367-421). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
To continue on, This following video interview of a Harvard Neurosurgeon, who had a Near Death Experience (NDE), is very interesting. His NDE was rather unique from typical NDEs in that he had completely lost brain wave function for 7 days while the rest of his body was on life support. As such he had what can be termed a ‘pure consciousness’ NDE that was dramatically different from the ‘typical’ Judeo-Christian NDEs of going through a tunnel to a higher heavenly dimension, seeing departed relatives, and having a life review. His NDE featured his ‘consciousness’ going outside the confines of space/time, matter/energy altogether to experience ‘non-locally’ what he termed ‘the Core’, i.e to experience God. It is also interesting to note that he retained a ‘finite sense of self-identity’, as Theism would hold, and did not blend into the infinite consciousness/omniscience of God, as pantheism would hold.
A Conversation with Near Death Experiencer Neurosurgeon Eben Alexander III, M.D. with Steve Paulson (Interviewer) - video
http://www.btci.org/bioethics/2012/videos2012/vid3.html
As well, there is a viable mechanism to explain why Dr. Alexander’s NDE was experienced as ‘non-local’ consciousness, outside the confines of space-time, matter-energy, instead of as going through a tunnel as is ‘normal’ in NDE’s. The Quantum Entanglement of consciousness in the brain is found to be rather different, more spread out, than Quantum Entanglement of the soul to the rest of the body, in DNA and proteins, is:
Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - Stuart Hameroff - video
http://vimeo.com/39982578
Verse and Music:
1 Corinthians 2:9
That is what the Scriptures mean when they say, "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love him."
Evanescence - The Other Side (Lyric Video)
http://www.vevo.com/watch/evanescence/the-other-side-lyric-video/USWV41200024?source=instantsearch
But Joealtle, what is interesting in all this is that even though Darwinists certainly have thousands of papers to 'literature bluff' with:,,,
"A Masterful Feat of Courtroom Deception": Immunologist Donald Ewert on Dover Trial - audio
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-20T15_01_03-08_00
The deception (literature bluff), from neo-Darwinists at Dover, did not stop with immunology;
The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information – Casey Luskin – March 2010
http://www.discovery.org/a/14251
Besides Dover, it seems that Darwinists have a bit of a problem as to literature bluffing in general when it comes to demonstrating the origin of functional information by purely Darwinian processes:
Assessing the NCSE’s Citation Bluffs on the Evolution of New Genetic Information – Feb. 2010
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/assessing_the_ncses_citation_b.html
How to Play the Gene Evolution Game – Casey Luskin – Feb. 2010
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/how_to_play_the_gene_evolution.html
Intelligent Design and the Origin of Biological Information: A Response to Dennis Venema By: Casey Luskin - October 3, 2011
http://www.discovery.org/a/17571
Yet Joealtle once you get past all the literature bluffing you find out a startling fact. 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
Molecular Machines: - Michael J. Behe
Excerpt: JME is a journal that was begun specifically to deal with the topic of how evolution occurs on the molecular level. It has high scientific standards, and is edited by prominent figures in the field.,,,
In the past ten years JME has published 886 papers. Of these, 95 discussed the chemical synthesis of molecules thought to be necessary for the origin of life, 44 proposed mathematical models to improve sequence analysis, 20 concerned the evolutionary implications of current structures, and 719 were analyses of protein or polynucleotide sequences. here were zero papers discussing detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures. This is not a peculiarity of JME. No papers are to be found that discuss detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Nature, Science, the Journal of Molecular Biology or, to my knowledge, any journal whatsoever.
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm
“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
Calling Nick Matzke's literature bluff on molecular machines - DonaldM UD blogger - April 2013
Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along.
Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard.
Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past.
https://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/#comment-453291
of related note to the fact that Darwinists have ZERO empirical evidence of Darwinian processes EVER producing a molecular machine, we have direct evidence that intelligence can produce as such:
(Man-Made) DNA nanorobot – video
https://vimeo.com/36880067
bornagain77
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
Joealtle you ask:
Can you point me to some scientific studies on ID?
Here is a article and video explaining why ID is science:
Why Intelligent Design Is Science: A Reading List - Casey Luskin - November 27, 2012
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/why_intelligent1066741.html
Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design - video (inference to best explanation)
https://vimeo.com/32148403
Here are some peer reviewed articles on ID:
Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) - updated regularly
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
Here are a few ID sites with peer reviewed papers - (of note: most of the following papers are listed on the preceding site):
Evolutionary Informatics Lab - Main Publications
http://evoinfo.org/publications/
Bio-Complexity Publication Archive
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/issue/archive
Dr. David L. Abel (The Gene Emergence Project) - list of published papers
http://lifeorigin.academia.edu/DrDavidLAbel/Papers
Here are two papers that are particularly interesting (at least they are interesting for me at this current time):
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010
Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
(A Reply To PZ Myers) Estimating the Probability of Functional Biological Proteins? Kirk Durston , Ph.D. Biophysics – 2012
Excerpt (Page 4): The Probabilities Get Worse
This measure of functional information (for the RecA protein) is good as a first pass estimate, but the situation is actually far worse for an evolutionary search. In the method described above and as noted in our paper, each site in an amino acid protein sequence is assumed to be independent of all other sites in the sequence. In reality, we know that this is not the case. There are numerous sites in the sequence that are mutually interdependent with other sites somewhere else in the sequence. A more recent paper shows how these interdependencies can be located within multiple sequence alignments.[6] These interdependencies greatly reduce the number of possible functional protein sequences by many orders of magnitude which, in turn, reduce the probabilities by many orders of magnitude as well. In other words, the numbers we obtained for RecA above are exceedingly generous; the actual situation is far worse for an evolutionary search.
http://powertochange.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Devious-Distortions-Durston-or-Myers_.pdf
bornagain77
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
Joe @ 20. “Your [Genomicus’] assumptions about my education level are both based on little data and completely incorrect . . .”
Yes, they were based on little data. But the data that Genomicus has all pointed to his conclusion. Your comments are indeed remarkably facile, which would lead any reasonable observer to Genomicus’ conclusion.
Joe, we enjoy exchanges with our Darwinist opponents here at UD. There’s nothing like a good debate. Unfortunately, you’ve given us nothing like a good debate. Your comments amount to little more than Darwinst sloganeering.
Please take Eric’s advice and go educate yourself about the matters upon which you would comment. Afterwards, by all means, come back and engage with us.Barry Arrington
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
I only made the complexity comment about the flagellum because I constantly hear that argument from ID's. Your assumptions about my education level are both based on little data and completely incorrect, no surprise coming from the moderator of an ID site.
Can you point me to some scientific studies on ID? Some articles using the scientific method to support ID would be great.
What I am doing is simply calling out your argument of irreducible complexity as ignorant. you cannot call something irreducible just because we dont know every detail of the history of all the parts to the machine. Your only so called evidence for ID is that science cant yet explain how structures arose over the course of evolution. This is not scientific at all.Joealtle
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
Sigh. I really messed up on the block quotes in that previous message, and I actually misspelled a word :oGenomicus
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
Joealtle:
You didn't really address my points. No offense, but your comments (e.g., the flagellum is the most complex strucutre) suggest you don't have an education in biology beyond high school, formal or otherwise.
Interestingly, Behe’s own department at Lehigh has officially opposed some of his stances.
How is this any more interesting than the fact that the mainstream scientific community has opposed much of intelligent design?
The fact that you tote the flagellum as irreducibly complex, and yet you ignore that it had millions of years to evolve.
Don't use the argument from incredulity, which goes like this: system X has had millions of years to evolve, so surely it did evolve. If there is no known stepwise evolutionary pathway from pre-cursors of a molecular machine to the machine itself, it is questionable whether that machine evolved. Finally, the human mind is quite capable of imagining very creative non-teleological scenarios for the origin of any biological system, and we have to take this into account when considering the origin of a given biological system. A statement of plausibility says little about what actually happened in the history of a system, and thus independent evidence is needed to support any conclusion, be it non-teleological or teleological.
Your irreducibly complex stance is also based on ignorance, as you cannot show that evolution of a biological structure is impossible.
Uh, actually, it's not up to us to demonstrate a negative. You need to demonstrate the plausibility of the evolution of molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum, and we need to provide positive evidence that the bacterial flagellum was intelligently designed.
Genomicus
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Joealte,
Im pretty sure saying something is impossible because we cant explain it yet is the epitome of ignorance.
You assume your conclusion. Your comment suggest that the reason behind claiming something impossible is because we can't explain it. This leaves out the possibility that the item in question can already be explained, and that there are things that are impossible.
It is not difficult to present a biological system that is irreducibly complex, nor is it difficult to present the impossible.
You should take Eric's advice and educate yourself.Upright BiPed
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
Feel free to correct me, but Im pretty sure saying something is impossible because we cant explain it yet is the epitome of ignorance.Joealtle
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Joealtle, you are completely clueless about the design inference. Do take some time to educate yourself before posting silly comments here.Eric Anderson
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
Im not the one making arguments that things are impossible, am I?Joealtle
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
Your entire position is built on ignorance. It definitely doesn't have any supporting evidence...Joe
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
Hmm well Im not ignoring him like you do. Irreducible complexity is built on ignorance, "evolution isnt capable of this" is an argument based on zero facts.Joealtle
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
Yeah throwing father time around is scientific, NOT.Joe
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
Interestingly, Behe's own department at Lehigh has officially opposed some of his stances. The fact that you tote the flagellum as irreducibly complex, and yet you ignore that it had millions of years to evolve. Your irreducibly complex stance is also based on ignorance, as you cannot show that evolution of a biological structure is impossible. Why are the flagellum and spliceosome irreducibly complex?Joealtle
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
Well hes a pretty damn smart guy.
He's just a popularizer of mainstream science. That doesn't make him any smarter than a T. Cavalier-Smith, Carl Woese, or a Michael Behe.
I love how your main picture is of the bacterial flagellum, your supposed “irreducibly complex” structure. No surprise there that its in bacteria though as they are the oldest living things on this planet.
What does the age of bacteria have to do with this? The eukaryotic flagellum is a complex motility organelle in the Eukaryotes, which have not been around for as long as the Bacteria.
The most complex structure was intelligently designed into simple bacteria?
Wherever did you get the idea the bacterial flagellum was the most complex structure? The spliceosome is far more complex than the bacterial flagellum, and it is present in the Eukaryotes.
And us humans just get opposable thumbs...
Our cells also posses eukaryotic flagella, spliceosomes, etc.
wah wahhh.
How does this contribute to the discussion over biological origins?Genomicus
