Case of God(Creator) VS Evolutionary Atheism

[sky4it]

When Syntax is there Syntax Part I

Be sure to read over the concept of Reversion in #7 below a couple of times, this is critical to getting to the bottom of Darwin.

I told you that I did not need to wear Michael Behe’s shoes, put on Weikart’s overcoat or hide behind Ann Coulter’s dress to talk about Evolution. Notice that I did not say- hide in Miss Ann’s dress since women are appealing to me. You see if I thought like that, then I would have to put that affection on the cross. That’s what is called living out these things that are in the bible. BTW, what I am saying is I wrote this stuff, Darwin is not that hard to figure out.

VARIATION

To understand Darwin, one needs to understand this concept and that Darwin calls it a Law. Throughout Darwin and many other writers on evolution, the concept of variation is described with many other adjectives. A small subset of these would be: vary, variable, small changes (Dawkins), modification, micro changes, mutations, differences, development and the like. In addition, (and this is important) there are at times in these writings literally huge diatribes of lengthy ensembles of words, all which are indicative of an explanation for these “variations.” In fact, variation is talked many times in the past tense, as though it has happened and provided as “proof” for the theory. The concept of variation in the past tense and derivative, is in fact the “faith” based component of the psuedo-science and is provided as proof in the things written below, that it makes evolution not a science but a faith based belief (however a false one.)

Most sciences (if not all), separate the topics in to different subjects. For example, economics separates itself into a “macro component” and a “ miro component.” Evolution has a micro component and macro component as well. The micro is describing small changes. The macro is explaining how a seal turned into a bear. Yet, in evolution, these two concepts are not separated in lectures (or any books that I have read) at all. It is not like listening to one move from micro to macro back and forth so that it is all rubbed together. Unmistakably, this adds to the confusion. It is sort of like watching someone who is saying they are playing pool with no pool table, just a bunch of pool balls they are throwing around everywhere. The mission of the micro component in evolution is to prove the macro component. There is however one huge problem with this. If micro evolutionists could prove small changes (they haven’t) it still would not prove the macro side. For example, if people who told lies grew long noses (Pennochio-Darwin–oops), all this would prove is that people who lie grow long noses. The micro component is reduced to talking about birds that have larger bills as though this is proof of evolution. Even that, has not been proved. For example, if a species of birds in the wild over successive generations had longer bills, about all that proves is that the birds which had the longer bills survived in that particular bird population. Neither are evolutionists able to demonstrate that there was any bird population in the particular species that did not exist in times gone past. Ie(That the beak of the bird they are talking about didn’t exist before there study) Even if they could demonstrate it, it still would not prove what the theory suggests: that a great big jackrabbit jumped out of the woods and became Diane Sawyer. Since there is no viable demonstration of the particulars which work, this is the reason it is not a scientific study but a faith based belief. Interestingly when you contrast faith as in Christian faith, this type of faith is readily available to be proved by EXPERIENCE. Ie(Christian faith is genuine or true where evolutionary faith cannot be proved- read DeCartes or to a lessor extent Kant) This means that evolutionary faith is untrue, and as such will be proved false in the rest of this paper.

1)Charles Darwin Descent of Man Chapter 2 Manner of Development of Man

Darwin:’From the astonishing number of observations it is proved that local influences of some kind act directly on stature................For instance, it is established ‘ that residence in Western States, during the years of growth, tends to produce increase in stature.” On the other hand, it is certain that with sailors their life delays growth, as shown, “by the great difference between the statures of soldiers and sailors at the ages of 17 and 18 years.”

Darwin thought that there was differences in stature between “Western Frontiers people” and “soldiers” compared to “sailors.” Darwin does this to prove his “law of variation” which by he is implying is the PROOF for evolution. If in fact there were differences could they be explained by other criteria? Well, yes in fact it could, for which if Darwin’s premise is TRUE could result in many questions. I do not know however, of one university that has an endowment to study the scientific field of “ DIFFERENCES IN STATURE BETWEEN SAILORS AND SOLDIERS.” Is there a more likely explanation? Yes, in fact there is. The topic of astonishing number of “Differences in stature between sailors and soldiers”, is from a report called Investigations in Military and Anthrop. Statistics. The report is nothing more than a U.S. statistical compilation of U.S. servicemen and information on them. Darwin simply quotes their observations as though their observations were scientific fact. The more likely answer is this is just bad science, for one reason: this was not a scientific study but a census compilation. Noteworthy in the census report is that Darwin reads through it and gleans commentary from others that fit the pseudo-scientific evolutionary model. The bizarre thing, is not that census workers would record hard information and provide commentary , but rather that someone would study the “differences in stature of soldiers and sailors” and think this is raw science; and that slight difference in stature are influenced by and evidences of evolution.

2)Here is some more wack-doodle doo science in the same Chapter under “Effects of the Increased Use and Disuse of Parts” 1st paragraph, (Read it yourself if you will)

Darwin essentially agues that through lesser use, certain parts of the body become shorter in length or longer depending on the case. Once again the poor sailors get massacred. According to Darwin, this is why sailors had, “in the late war” ie( the variation occurred in one lifetime) shorter arms and longer legs than say your average ordinary GI joe soldier. Darwin, however, ran into a contradiction is studying our nautical friends. He ascertained that poor sailors have shorter arms but use them a lot, an unexpected result. How did the great mind of Darwin resolve this? It is in fact a comical answer. Darwin said that sailors, “chiefly use there arms in pulling and not supporting weights.” ie (there arms are shorter because they are “Pullers” not “weight supporters”) Get It? If you don’t; don’t be surprised. In the wack-doodle do mind of Darwin when something doesn’t work out in the faith based system of “variation”, just plug in your own answer. In this case the fill in the blank credo is DESCRIBING POOR SAILORS AS PULLERS NOT WEIGHT SUPPORTERS. Where is all the scientific research into the effect of “pulling” as opposed to “weight supporting?” Well, in fact I do not think there is an endowment at any university to discuss this mystifying topic either. Neither did Darwin have a scientific book on pullers as opposed to weight supporters (Thank goodness) For even in the wackadoodle do mind of Darwin, he knew that would be one flew over the coco’s nest. Thank goodness, the poor sailors have had enough. BTW, if you want some more wackadoodle doo sailor stories, there might not be more of that on sailors, but in all likelihood there is enough bad science to fill up a comic book store. Some of it is tough to get to, since Darwin is studying groups of people that are hard to even identify, maybe even by design. Since I know your funny bone isn’t the goods with Darwin lets move on to some other goofy goods. The above paragraphs prove a few points about Darwin. Darwin loved to race his contraption around through statistical studies, and balance the facts with creepy fairy tales: like saying sailors were pullers not weight supporters. IT IS SORT OF LIKE STUDYING THE CULT GURU DARWIN’S HOLY GRAIL ONLY TO FIND OUT HE WAS A REAL STINKING LOUSY SCIENTIST. IT ALSO PROVES THAT THE CULT GURU’S DARWIN’S HOLY GRAIL, IS REALLY STUFF UP THERE ABOUT WITH VPW OR CALVIN, IN TERMS OF GOOD SCIENTIFIC OR THEOLOGICAL THOUGHT.

3) Descent of Man, Chapter On the Manner and Development of Man

Darwin, “ If we consider all the races of man as forming a single species , his range is enormous; but some separate races, as the Americans and Polynesians, have very wide ranges. It is a well known law that widely ranging species are much more variable than species with restricted ranges; and the variability of man with more truth be compared with that of widely ranging species than that of domesticated animals.

Darwin says that man as a single species has “enormous range.” Darwin says that some races like Americans and Polynesians have “very wide ranges.” Darwin kind of threw animals out the door as far as this comparison goes, but not completely. First, how can man as a single species have “enormous range” that in sentence two becomes a “restricted range?” There is only one answer. Darwin must be indicating animals have restricted range. (Unless, of course some men have enormous restricted ranges but that’s crazy wacky even for Darwin) In addition, how is one suppose to compare” enormous ranging” types with “widely ranging” types in men? Is there suppose to be a difference in widely vs enormous ranging types? This is ridiculous. In fact, this is even crazier than the next paragraph. Yet, this is Charles Darwin.

Let’s suppose that Darwin is referring to animals as those who have restricted range. (Because it can’t be anything else unless men have enormous restricted ranges; an utter absurdity) This is where the bogus science really falls apart yet again. Darwin indicates that “widely ranging species are much more variable than species with restricted ranges.”ie(This was his quote.) The widely ranging are Americans and Polynesians. Those with restricted ranges are animals. Darwin, however, may not be talking about all animals but comparing men with one single species of animal. Take dogs for example, which one can breed some successfully even though there is great variation between them. There are over 800 breeds of the dog species. The ones that can be interbreed have greater variation then men do in characteristics. Still, when comparing men and a species of animal, there is absolutely no reason to assume (as Darwin does) that man who is more widely ranging and thus more variable because of this trait. The humorous part is this: I did not know until Darwin, that our fury friends had “ranging” difficulties and turmoil. In fact there is no reason to mention it, unless you have a wack-doodle doo science that one is trying to prove. Anyway, the argument fails on all grounds. Thus, Darwin is implicitly wrong and contradictory .Furthermore, most people don’t study the Guru’s words because they are by design evasive and illusive. Sort of like a magic act, that when you put it under a microscope is lacking in logic and the trick falls apart.

Darwin calls this stuff a LAW. In the animal kingdom, certainly camels and kangaroos would have “good ranges” as opposed to ants and snakes that don’t get around so well. If Darwin were even partially correct we would have huge variations in the population of jumping jack fury looking kangaroos and camels with stripes and small noses. Instead what do we find, large populations of the less well ranging snakes and ants all over the world, who have considerable and more diversified populations than our two humped and jumping jack friends.

What does all this say about Darwin? It proves that not only was he a horrible scientist but a horrible communicator as well.

4) Descent of Man, Chapter - Secondary Sexual Characteristics of Man - Under Summary

Charles Darwin quote, “We may conclude that the greater size, strength, courage, pugnacity, and energy of man, IN COMPARISON WITH WOMEN, were acquired during primeval times , and have subsequently been augmented........females. The greater intellectual vigor and power of invention in man , is probably ......(in comparison to who? Women is the comparison in the context.)

Darwin just said that men have greater intellects and powers to invent than women.

Darwin just said that men have greater courage, pugnacity and energy than women.

Notice that this is Darwin’s summary or conclusion. He developed all these conclusions while observing people. Once again, lets just call this what it is: bad science. Isn’t this what is called today “sexiest?” The “woolly hair” thing, that’s Darwin too. If only old Don Imus had known, all he had to do was quote from Darwin to describe women’s basketball and he would have been in familiar and safe territory. Because Charles Darwin’s Holy Grail of Origins is beyond reproof, even if you point out the wack-a-doodle doo theatrics. The topic of women becomes important in #7 below, when Darwin does his “science” on hairy people.

5) Charles Darwin Descent of Man Chapter 2 3rd Paragraph

Darwin: “ The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the GREATER DIFFERENCES between the men of distinct races, is so NOTORIOUS that not a word here need be said.”

Darwin thought that there were GREATER DIFFERENCES between the races than between one single race IN PEOPLES MENTAL FACULTIES.

This is simple to understand what he is saying: You take two Caucasians of different aptitude say one has a high IQ and one has a low IQ. Darwin just said that between specific races; the DIFFERENCES ARE GREATER THAN THAT. Ie(Darwin thinks that the differences between race IQ (a measure of “mental faculties”) is greater between the races than between IQ as measured in one particular race.) How exactly is this not racist? Furthermore, he said it is notorious. ie(it’s a bad thing) Now when Haeckel and Company were doing “science” is it that hard to see where they were going? This is as easy as 1+1=2, and there is no argument around it. Darwin also said that it was a well known fact, so he didn’t have to talk about it. For Darwin this well known fact was notorious.

6) Yet another problematic area for Darwinists is the Darwinian concept of “Reversion” which topic is part of Darwin’s law of Variation. Reversion is in essence a “bad thing” It is in fact a sequence of moving back to a more primitive state. Thus, the Social Darwin thing, is not a figment of someone’s imagination. It explains why some feel compelled to help the bogus evolutionary contraption along. This concept is right from Darwin by the way.

From Darwin, Descent of Man Chapter 2 On the Manner of Development of Man

under topic Reversion, Quote by Charles Darwin: “ The simple brain of a micocephalous idiot, in as far as it resembles that of an ape, may in this sense be said to offer a case of reversion.”

BTW, I have a sister who is mentally ill who has been called names like idiot all her life, thank you very much Charles Darwin. That certainly ought to raise a few eyebrows for people wanting to hire a Darwinist psychiatrist no? Oh, and here’s one for Darwin’s crap log book, since when did equating idiots to apes, not become a crime? Er uh lets see back to those Holocaust concentration camps where the mentally retarded were massacred and you now want to say the science of Darwin had nothing to do with it? Please explain this statement by Darwin in context, not just of the races, but the massacred mentally ill? Look at the fact also that Darwin says the idiot and apes brains are the same. Does this in fact show why concentration camp people where running around with there rulers measuring peoples skulls? Or maybe in the Darwinian view of things, the camp soldiers had nothing else to do; so they were just playing with rulers and stuff. Sort of like the soldiers rationale thing, where thinking soldiers are “rulers with measures.” not“measurers with rulers.” Gee, whatever the “fill in the blank” pseudo-science needs to suit it’s purpose.

7) Descent of Man- Chapter Secondary Sexual Characteristics of Man - Topic: Hair (To understand this topic, you must keep in mind Darwin’s reversion concept)

Darwin: “Some races are much more hairy than others, especially the males; but it must not be assumed that the more hairy races, such as the European, have retained there primordial condition more completely than the naked races such as the Kalmucks or Americans. It is more probable that the hairiness of the former ie(European- added) is due to PARTIAL REVERSION ;for characters which have been at some former period long inherited are always apt to return. We have seen that IDIOTS are often very hairy, and they are apt to REVERT in other characters to a lower animal type.” Quote Charles Darwin. Here is one more Darwin quote a few paragraphs earlier: “for in all parts of the world women are less hairy then men.”

Darwin ran into a few roadblocks in his study of hairy people. One road block was that some Europeans were hairy. The other was that women are not hairy at all. So what does Darwin do: he simply says “it must not be assumed that Europeans have a “primordial condition” because it’s just a PARTIAL REVERSION.ie( partial reversion in Darwin’s mind is simply “apt to return.”) Partial reversion then is to be expected but not FULL BLOWN REVERSION, the condition that idiots have. Because in Darwin’s mind idiots are VERY HAIRY. So if one is very hairy that would be full reversion but sort of hairy that is just partial reversion. Ie(Does this mean Robin Williams is an idiot?) I think not. Let’s just call this what it is: bad science.

BTW, people in Africa are not very hairy either. Why doesn’t the Guru Darwin discuss this? Because it doesn’t fit the simpleton’s mind of what he is trying to prove. Furthermore, Darwin already has enough axes to grind with them, who Darwin describes up and down in his writings as “savages.”

Noteworthy is the fact, that when in doubt, just split Darwin’s concept of Reversion in two and create ‘FULL BLOWN REVERSION” and “PARTIAL REVERSION.” If you are European you get the good reversion as in the partial one. If you are an idiot you get the bad reversion as in the “full blown case of reversion.” It sort of works like this: If you are a European and hairy, it’s just a case of the mumps or chicken pox, nothing to worry about. If, however, one is an idiot who is very hairy; well then it’s terminal. Why does this stuff mean anything in the Guru Darwin’s mind? Because as we shall see from #8 below appearances in man ALWAYS mean something in the Quack Darwin’s mind. Furthermore, you can’t make this stuff up, it’s just that bizarre and comical. BTW, if you can’t see this is just horrible science after all this, check yourself out, in fact you might be really hairy, it could be you have the full blown reversionary type.

Here is the important one: REVERSION IS THE PROOF FACT THAT CHARLES DARWIN OFFERS AS “PROOF” OF HIS THEORY OF EVOLUTION. (In fact, it is critical in trying to understand Darwin’s theory) Here is the proof: Charles Darwin: Descent of Man, On the Manner of Development of Man - under topic Reversion last paragraph. Darwin quote: “ These several reversionary structures, as well as the strictly rudimentary ones reveal the DESCENT OF MAN from some lower form in an UNMISTAKABLE MANNER.” Thus, once you rip a hole ( a Darwinian sized hole-oops) in the concept of Reversion, it all falls apart. I just did that. It is unmistakable (as Darwin would say) that Darwin’s concept of reversion is false and a lie. Reversion is the one thing that Darwin offers as proof in fact for his theory and we have now seen that it is false and not science at all. (Does this mean Robin Williams is safe today as far as a science project goes?)

Gee, I am not a hairy man shouldn’t this make me happy?

8) Darwin Descent of Man Chapter 4 On The Affinities and Genealogy of Man 2nd paragraph

“ .....He (man) retains many rudimentary and useless structures which no doubt were once serviceable. Characters occasionally make there re-appearance in him, (that would be partial reversion like mumps or chicken pox ) which we have reason to believe were possessed by his early progenitors. Ie(the early progenitors were more like idiots, but back then it was a healthy sort of thing like the apes- which yes I added) If the origin of man had been wholly different from that of all other animals, these various appearances would be mere empty deceptions; but such an admission is incredible.”

A) This statement by Darwin: “If the origin of man had been wholly different from that of all other animals.” This statement by Darwin becomes a contradiction WHEN ANYONE TRIES TO APPLY MORALITY AND ETHICS to the Darwinian model. Under the Darwinian model, animals and man and their “origins” are not wholly different, they are in fact much the same. If the Darwinian model were remotely true, one could apply ethics and morals to alligators and frogs, which in fact is INSANE. Still, Darwinians agree that men can be taught and have learning faculties, (unless you are a reversionary idiot). Yet, the SIMPLE FACT THAT MEN can possess ethics and morals shows that men are different in there origin (from animals), a claim that shows that the Darwinian statement here is a falsehood and a lie. Certainly, the differences between man and his progenitors could not be like climbing Mount Everest, if Darwin were correct. What animal can be taught morals and ethics and talking(a parrot a little) and mathematics in a behavioral setting that is intellectual? None that’s how many. Oh but wait, someone taught there dog to pee outside and a cat is better by punishing it. This is the type of proof Darwinians are reduced to when comparing man and animals, and applying morals, ethics and other things.

B)Darwins statement, “these various appearances would be mere empty deceptions; but such an admission is incredible.”

What Darwin is saying is that when we have appearances (like rudimentary and useless structures) they are not empty deceptions. Ie( Appearances in man which are unexplainable are not for no reason they prove something.) What do they prove? EVILOUTION is what they prove in Darwin’s mind. The fact that we have people who Darwin calls idiots or “rudimentary and useless structures” is proof defacto in this statement by Darwin that the simpleton has proved evolution in his mind. ( you can’t make this stuff up this is the simpleton’s mind) . HERE IS THE WAY DARWIN THINKING WORKS: WELL YOU SEE THOSE STARS UP THERE, WE DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE FOR SO THEY PROVE EVOLOUTION. This is what the QUACK A DOODLE DOO SCIENCE IS REDUCED TOO.

The following is the most important in understanding the mind of Darwin towards his “science of evolution”: Darwin thinks to make an admission that appearances in man can’t be explained is INCREDIBLE. (This is precisely what he said in his statement.) I do not know of normal scientists who wake up in the morning and can’t cure cancer or explain a phenomena they are working on and say to themselves, its incredible that we didn’t solve this today,baby!!!!! (This is how the simpleton’s mind works) Does Darwin think it is INCREDIBLE that people have muscle structures that work with nerve impulses so people can walk? Nope, he never mentions it for one reason: Things that are harmonious in creation are to Darwin not where he is driving the contraption of evolution, so he never stops to bag it or consider it. (BTW, that’s what “normal scientists do, they study harmonious things in nature and draw on it conclusions which advance science.) Thus, evolution is NOT a natural science. For Darwin anything that he can’t explain today (but chiefly in appearances in man), he will not tolerate without an explanation, but mainly in context to origins of man and to God, The explanation to Darwin has to be something else other than God.

Of course, with a God who is infinite in knowledge and creative works this explains precisely why Darwin will not accept him. God is just too incredible for Darwin to digest. If Darwin were a rational man, he would say like all Christians who acknowledge that the works and knowledge of God is past finding out. Darwin will not admit this because he wants nothing to do with God, because God and his works can’t be digested by the simpleton’s mind, at least not in a measure that Darwin is willing to do.

I believe that I have proved the evolutionary faith to be fiction, fairy tales, exaggerations, bad science (and badly communicated) so it should be referred to as such. Calling it a faith does disservice to the concept of faith. Unless of course one is referring to the faith held by Sun Yung Moon.

[sky4it]

Garth and YID

Garth: Why is it I get the feeling after we are done with this thread you and I would drink a few cold ones and laugh a lot. Anyway I will post one more article afterwhich this thread can move south.

BTW, YID: I agree with Garth that posting in caps doesn't make for good dialogue. Also the athiest/abortion/Democrat stuff. I am a little surprised that Garth didn't extrapolate you to nerdville.

Let's see, back during Roe vs Wade, young sexual wanna bes before embarking in a few moment of pleasures, SAT DOWN AND READ THE BORING DARWIN TOO JUSTIFY A PROBABLE ABORTION. Uh no that wouldnt go, but if you want to make an argument lets here it.

I could try but Garth would have me cut up rather profoundly.

Anyway, Garth after this thread dies, I will follow up on the Calvin thread and if your looking for more from me on some other thread, tell me where that thread is.

One thing I should say to you Garth in the form of a semi-excuse. I was rather reved up coming in here and it really was unfair to take it out on you. I tried to provoke you a little to see if I could get you to throw some pies. You didnt and congrats. I guess, Dawkins should use guys like you as proof of ethics and good behavior. If I got to your nerves a little it was intended more for Dawkins and Olbermann, you are a way superior person to them.

Later man.................................................