I haven't quite finished watching this ludicrous display and don't really know if I will. It seems as though science wanted an easy victory so they matched a Globe Trotter, (Nye), against a Washington General, (Ham). And even at that I think Ham had the comment of the debate in his 5 minute introduction: "We weren't there." He had me at "we weren't there." Nobody knows cuz we weren't fucking THERE! So shut the hell up already! This is just two people arguing over the difference between religious faith and scientific theory. Let me end the debate right now: there's negligible difference. Faith is described in the Bible as the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. It's Hebrews 11:1 for all you sticklers. A scientific theory is accepted as a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. People believe this also applies to evolution. It gives Bill Nye a massively unfair advantage. This does NOT apply to random evolution as a theory of how things came about because, once again, we weren't THERE! There can be no observation or experimentation.
In fact if you want to apply some real science to the debate, evolution depends on random genetic mutation as its engine. Oddly enough there has never been, in observation or experimentation, a new species created through genetic mutation. Never. Zero. Yet the idea that the, what, 8.7 million species we have on Earth now and the countless that there have been in the past and are now extinct ALL being created through genetic mutation is an inexplicably enduring theory despite SCIENTIFIC evidence to the contrary. So what would change your mind, evidence? I find that hard to believe since there is absolutely no evidence of evidence that caused him to make up his mind in the first place. And there IS scientific evidence that is so fantastically against the concept of macro evolution it makes it about the most improbable idea EVER.
You've all heard of Darwin and probably a lot of you have heard of Dick Dawkins. I bet, outside of my blog, you've never heard of Lee Spetner. Spetner would have made smoke come out the Science Guy's ears. In the 16 years since his book Not By Chance was published there have been many who have tried to debate Spetner, and question his numbers and his science, none yet successfully. The book is not famous but definitely should be for its calculation of the odds of the simplest new species being formed through random genetic mutation. Using numbers favourable to, even suggested by the architects of Neo Darwinism, Spetner calculated the odds of that simplest of new species being created through random genetic mutation to be 3.6x10 to the 2738th power to one against. The scientifically agreed upon odds of impossibility are 10 to the 50th power to one against. To give you some idea, winning by betting on one number on roulette SEVENTEEN times in a row is possible. Odds are about 1 in 10 to the 45th power against. But you'd get booted out of any casino before this could happen. Because NO body would believe this is possible. NO body. Many things well within the realm of possibility are completely discounted by reasonable human beings as impossible. If somebody bet only 5 or 6 times in a row on, say number 13, and won there would not be a person in the casino who believed he/she wasn't cheating. Yet billions believe in something astronomically less likely. And bear in mind this number applies to just one single new species. What the real odds are against everything coming into being this way dizzy the intellect!
Spetner explains a bit about genetic mutation. He says how a mutation really never creates new information in the genome. It always destroys info. Now there are going to be people saying, "Well what about those germs and those moths and those whatever?!" Sometimes an inhibitor gene is destroyed and this allows something that was inhibited to be produced making it appear as though the mutation led to something new being produced. So if we had wing, gill, tail, webbed feet inhibitor genes then to mutate them away may allow wings, tails, gills or webbed feet to form all uninhibited like. It would take billions of extremely rarely occurring mutations targeting already existing inhibitor genes randomly to create new species. Random targeting. That's not possible is it? This is the trouble evolutionists constantly get themselves into.
Neither I, nor Spetner, am saying that evolution leading to the creation of all beings did not happen, we're saying it goes against all observation and experimentation to believe that it did. But I won't tell people not to believe in evolution, just to understand that it is merely that, a belief, no different than that of Ken Ham's belief that two of every species on Earth piled onto a the ark. Evolutionists scoff at that idea but it is VASTLY more plausible than evolution.
Don't just take my word for it. Read Not By Chance. Spetner explains the sources of all his calculations exhaustively. Read the many people who take up the cause of evolution or Darwinism or whatever and try with invariable impotency to challenge Spetner. Read Dawkins, (objectively), and you will see the gaping holes in his entertaining story telling. Changing his weasel program to SELECT appropriate letters was not natural selection, it was taking the random out of nature, which is just playing God. Read Leon Lederman trying to explain theoretical sciences in his soccer ball analogy and inadvertently explaining exactly how billions of people believe in a Higher Power. Listen to Chris Hedges speaking about ruthless corporate totalitarianism leading to crisis cults, groups of people who in desperate times revert to magical thinking. He then includes people who believe in the rapture and don't believe in evolution among the crisis cult magical thinkers when in fact evolution is just as magical an idea as Jesus returning to take all the good ones away. Not to mention science having various branches that are some of the more ruthless totalitarian corporations there are, Big Pharma to name one, practically every science faculty of every university charging 10 times what they did 20 years ago for degrees they know will not make the students enough money to ever pay their student loans back to name another. Education is big business, folks and that includes science. And where there's intense pressure to publish or perish monetarily, papers that are not-so-scientific can be the result. Sometimes papers that are "total bullshit" are the result. There's no money in investigating God. There can be no observational evidence. But untold amounts of money are given to fund studies every year on theoretical sciences that are nebulous at best but are all designed as a busy alternative to admitting that there is something or someone out there science will never understand. Check this out:
And now, check THIS out. See? Even the great Darwin himself doesn't know everything about nature. Now this is not brandy and these are not American monkeys, but if evolution is true they're close relatives aren't they? Maybe these are the trailer trash monkey relatives. I have read Darwin and I believe he is vastly misrepresented. He was NOT an atheist. He believed in God as a "first cause" and "ultimate law maker." In The Origin of Species we don't see the word "God" because then the book would certainly not have followed the direction science was trying to go at the time, and likely wouldn't have sold so well or even been published. But check it out folks, the N in Nature is almost always capitalized and Nature is spoken of in terms that very strongly suggest deity. This is why "Natural Selection" only makes sense with a Nature that includes a non-random, sentient, intelligence. Otherwise it's like "random targeting," something random with something not and is self-contradictory. Darwin just had a hard time with a LOVING God who could design species as hideously cruel as some beetles or wasps that paralyze live creatures and eat them while they can feel the pain just can't move. Much like my faith has been tested by the creation of a species that systematically destroys other members of its species and its own habitat in the selfish pursuit of money. Money. Aye there's the rub! Take a look at this:
It's an overly simplistic tactic employed to make science look better than it makes itself look. Of course we all support the method. It's a solid method. But much the same as education, religion, economics, politics, business, just about all the important aspects of our society, science has been adversely affected by what is euphemistically called "the human element." This statement by Steven Novella blissfully ignores the concept that without human scientists there can be no science. It's not science people mistrust, it's the scientists, and not all of them, just the ones who allow science to be skewed by what I will UN-euphemistically call "greed." To be fair I understand that some scientists are broke and need funding for research or they will be out of business. At the point where you have to choose between a job at 7-11 or continuing the studies in your expertise that has burdened you with student loan debt but that you just might love more than selling Slurpies, "human nature" might cause a scientist to abandon important research and study things that are marketable. For instance the magical oil munching microbes used in the Gulf. Have a read.
Now if you watch the documentary called "The Big Fix," you find that the microbes didn't eat the oil. At all! And talking about the oil leakage like it was completely plugged or mitigating it by calling it "natural seeps," why that's just irresponsible reporting by Discovery News isn't it? A trusted source of scientific reporting! Well, no, what the spin doctors will now do, under the employ of big oil, is find one misstep, one flaw in the documentary, expose it, flog it to death, write the whole thing off as conspiracy theory and pressure the public into doing the same thing by suggesting they are stupid if they believe otherwise. Or at least silly co-conspirators. If it ain't broke, why fix it? This tactic has been successfully employed for ages!
If you'd rather believe in a God particle than a God, that's your journey, man. But don't try to tell me that it's any less theoretical or "magical" than a person who believes in God, like me, looking at all the wonders, dare I say MIRACLES that surround us and seeing the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. I'm okay with non-random evolutionists but discounting God in nature is no less a religion than including Him. Period.
Natural Selection/Mother Nature, the Bible/the God Delusion, the Big Bang/Creation, Jesus/Dawkins, God/Darwin, potayto/potahto.
No comments:
Post a Comment