RSS Output
French    German    Spain    Italian    Arabic    Chinese Simplified    Russian

Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

Gab@StFerdinandIII - https://unstabbinated.substack.com/

Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands.  Cults everywhere:  Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...

Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death 

Archive - October 2015

The bio-chemically ignorant believe in Evolution

Having failed grade 9 chemistry one supposes.....

Bookmark and Share

 

To believe in Evolution, you must be bio-chemically ignorant and obviously slept through grade 9 chemistry. Evolution not only offends scientific laws around energy, matter, entropy, but also bio-chemical reality. For example - there have never been, and never will be, a 'Darwinian' [read rhetorical], 'mechanism' [meaning 'we don't know']; to convert amino acids into life; or magically create RNA, DNA, amino acids, ATP, poly peptide bonds and all the other complexities of a single cell at the same time, and arrange that complexity into processes to generate life. Neither is there any observable evidence that macro-evolution occurs, or that even, single cells 'mutate' into trillion celled organisms. None. You can't say 'well in the future we will solve these riddles'. By definition that is not science, but faith. Evolution is bio-chemically stupid.
 

Charles McCombs, Phd: As a Ph.D. Organic Chemist, I have to admit that the formation of amino acids under these conditions [the famous and fraudulent Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 which produced 2 dead amino acids in a contrived lab experiment....] is fascinating, but there is a major problem. Life was never formed in that experiment. The product was amino acids, which are normal everyday chemicals that do not "live." Even unto this day, there is no known process that has ever converted amino acids into a life form, but this fact does not stop evolutionists from claiming that this experiment is proof that life came from chemicals. Evolutionists know that amino acids do not live, but they call this proof anyway because they claim that amino acids are the building blocks of life.”
 

Then there is the grade 11 problem of bio-chemical chirality. Apparently the cult of Darwin slept through that class as well.

 

Chirality is probably one of the best scientific evidences we have against random chance evolution and chirality totally destroys the claim that life came from chemicals. Obviously, this is one fact they do not even want to discuss.

Chirality is a chemical term that means handedness. ....Your hands may appear to be identical, but in reality, they are only mirror images of each other, hence the term handedness. For this reason, chirality can exist as a right-handed or a left-handed molecule, and each individual molecule is called an optical isomer.

What is the problem of chirality? In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process.”

 

So the lab of life – Miller and Urey's fake experiment way back in 1953, with no subsequent updates or replication – produced 2 dead amino acids out of 20 total amino acids that make up proteins, both lacking chirality. They were also mere byproducts, devoid of any relationship to 'life'.
 

Miller’s experiment did produce the amino acids, but only by continuously circulating the reaction mixture and isolating products as they were formed. The quantities were still tiny and not in the same proportions as found in nature.

One of the causes of the low yield has been identified by Peltzer who worked with Miller. As the amino acids were formed they reacted with reducing sugars in the Maillard reaction, forming a brown tar around Miller's apparatus. Ultimately, Miller was producing large compounds called mellanoids, with amino acids as an intermediate product.” [J. Peet, BSc, MSc, PHD, CChem, FRSC] 


There never was an experiment which proved that bio-chemical random chance would produce life. There is no known mechanism to create amino acids 'from a soupy pond', which then magically form into proteins. Proteins themselves are only made from transcripted DNA code through a manufacturing process within ribosomes. Therefore, they cannot arise without the singular complexity of an entire cell structure.

It is quite obvious that evolution offends basic chemistry and is disconnected from science.

 

 

Reason and faith. Faith and Reason. No conflict.

Only in medieval Europe is there is a discussion of these 2 principles.

Bookmark and Share

 The two Peter's Abelard [11th c] and Lombard [12th c] prove the seminal fact that reason imbues faith, and that faith can lead to reason. There is no conflict. In fact, in the memorable words of the Catholic Copernicus, it is not the men of reason who oppose change, but men corrupted by secular interests about power and relevancy such as the academics who howled against heliocentricity, slandering Copernicus and later Kepler. Contrary to atheist and protestant propaganda, the Church had no issues with Copernicus or Kepler, the man who proved with math, that elliptical orbits existed.

 

In this vein, we see the two Peters shoving European philosophy and thought into the right direction in the 11th and 12th centuries. Both were attacked during their lifetimes, both were calumnied by special interests, both were mocked, yet both had large bodies of support, and both were men of faith as well as reason.

 

Abelard was a devout Catholic with some heterodox ideas around the Trinity. He was a star at the University of Paris, and his meteor crashed as abruptly as its ascent. He is famous for an illicit romance with Heloise which essentially assured his own downfall. Chivalric love aside, the main importance of Abelard resides in the usage of the main principles which underlay Christianity and its philosophies, namely: "Reason aids Faith" and "Faith aids Reason". These articles inspired medieval scholasticism, which reached an apogee in the 13th and 14th centuries. Abelard tended emphasize Reason aids Faith, and did not much stress unlike Augustinians and the mystics, on Faith aids Reason.

 

Abelard was always at odds with more orthodox Catholics because, as with Galileo, he possessed the diplomatic skills and charms of a charging elephant. Abelard always adopted an uncompromising, shrill tone, and employed a phraseology, especially and purposefully, when speaking of sacred subjects, which gave, like Galileo great offense. As with Galileo the content of the message was oftentimes lost in the irascible, condescending and absurd declamations including mocking ad hominems.

 

Abelard used like many of those who were interested in reforming aspects of Church doctrine, the logic of the dialectic, to better comprehend the mysteries of faith. By the thirteenth century, the golden age of scholasticism had adopted Abelard's methodology giving full scope to reason to apprehend and modify faith and thereby defend Christianity using logic and rationale, not just scripture and mysticism.

 

Abelard's main philosophical genius is expressed in his work “Sic et Non” which consisted of of scriptural and patristic passages contrived in a system where there would be arguments for and against various theological opinions. This approach would also be used by his student Lombard and later in the 13th century by St. Thomas Aquinas. Sic et Non was a textbook for students and it simply places before the reader the reasons, for and against, surrounding key issues, or interpretations, around Church doctrine. He does not provide what he believes is an answer. He expects the students to make up their own minds through the use of dialectical reasoning.

 

Abelard leads directly to Lombard, and through Lombard to Aquinas. Lombard was a student of, and heavily influenced by Abelard. In fact he is Abelard's main 'heir', and it is through Lombard, that the scholasticism of the 13th century, which becomes suffused with reason, owes its debt.

 

Lombard [source] also believed reason lead to faith. He approached reason and faith from a different perspective in some ways, than his more flawed teacher. He was certainly a 'scholastic' in the sense that he merged older even ancient concepts with the Christian. For Lombard, knowledge was the slow accumulation of previous experiences, including the secular alongside the theological. He was not an innovative thinker, but a compiler and his importance lies in putting together extant material from the Church and other sources, into encyclopedias of knowledge. Along with Bede and Alcuin, he was interested in preserving, and than building upon, existing ideas and observations.

 

He was a presbyter or abbot in France for many years, and archbishop of Paris for a short while in 1159, dying shortly after. He is justly famous for his work, “The Sentences" ["Quatuor libri Sententiarum"]. It is this theological work which gives him a special place in the history of theology in the Middle Ages.

 

The Sentences is divided into four books. It is Socratic in structure with a long series of questions and answers, covering the whole body of theological doctrine uniting Church concepts into a systematized whole. Oftentimes two answers based on existing doctrines or treatises would be supplied to answer one question, imitating Abelard. This lack of originality and clarity, however, provoked vicious attacks against Lombard from within the Church, during and after his lifetime. This also imitated some of the animus experienced by Abelard. However, over the long term, Lombard's ideas or methods prevailed, and are routinely used by Church theologians as a means to better understand their faith, and to help clarify doctrines.

 

The two Peters are just some examples of faith leading to reason, and reason being employed to support and better understand faith. There is no inherent conflict between the two.

 

Evolution's illogic and lack of ontology. No science here. Meet the platypus.

Evolution in isolation and other rhetoric destroyed.

Bookmark and Share

The poverty of evolution. A cat is a cat. It will always be a cat, and it has always been a cat. It does not 'mutate' into anything but a death state. During the embryological process, genetic material from frogs or lizards do not find a way into the developing cat. There is no method to add new genetic material out of species to its development. Cats only mate with cats. But in the mythology of Darwin's cult, somehow a creature like a cat, or say a small wolf, 'mutated', through 'natural selection', to leave the land and become a whale......

 

The platypus is an example of the embarrassment of evolution's non science. There is no possibility that a mammal mated with a reptile and produced a hybrid. No fossil proof exists. No lab proof exists. No real world observation exists. Species mate in kind. Mammals with only mammals. Reptiles with only reptiles. There is no mechanism, nor any observational scientific proof to dismiss this iron law of nature. Species do not inter-breed naturally. There are no examples of mammtilians. None.

 

A platypus, is simply a platypus. It has its own genomic code, its own software. It naturally selects to be only a platypus. You can only 'select' from the existing software you possess. There is no magic informational addition, simply because you have been 'wishing' you had wings, or longer legs, or 4 eyes. Your genes don't 'naturally select' by themselves. Genetic code is specifically arranged software. Software does not 'mutate' into something better. It will only degrade and atrophy. This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics – all systems, open, shut, hybrids --all eventually fail.

 

The platypus [along with many other species], vexes the cult of Darwin.

 

Scientists initially considered the platypus to be ‘primitive’, but then they discovered the incredibly complex electrolocation techniques the animal uses to find food. To evolutionists this made it a ‘highly evolved animal and not a primitive transition between reptiles and mammals.’"

 

Whoops.

 

And “..the discovery in the early 1990s of three platypus teeth in South America—almost identical to fossil platypus teeth found in Australia—threw that theory [evolution in isolation etc.] upside down.(Marsupials, too, were once considered to be exclusive to Australia, but their fossils have now been found on every continent.) Adult living platypuses do not have teeth, but the discovery of platypus fossils in Australia had already identified that their ancestors did have teeth, which were unique and distinctive."

 

Whoops.

 

In reality, there is nothing in the fossil record to indicate that the platypus was ever anything other than a platypus. It is not a living ‘transitional’ form. It is a truly unique creature, and one that continues to baffle those who insist on making it fit into an evolutionary tree.

More on the platypus [link].

So you are a rational-scientist-enlightenment-realist ?

And you believe that scales turned to feathers and bacteria became Barry O ?

Bookmark and Share

 

So you are a scientist ? Let me guess. You believe plant food causes climate to 'change', and that pond scum became you. There is no science in either proposition, but a lot of philosophy and metaphysics. The cult of evolution with high priests such as Dawkins or alien-boy and multi-verse believer and science fiction writer Hawking, routinely invoke the classic; 'we will find a solution to this particular problem later', liturgical psalm. In the Bible of evolution, this particular theological claim is vibrant. Dawkins, who has never performed one single scientific experiment, has no idea how or why life 'evolved' on this planet from nothing. Hawking, a man devoid of any observational or operational science supporting the cult of algae to alchemist, posits aliens seeded Gaia with magic pixie dust [panspermia]. Neither claim is scientific. They are theological statements. [for example Evolution denies the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, here]

 

By definition Evolution rejects a Creator and demands naturalism. In this vein, life must have arose from non-life. Yet abiogenesis was disproven by Pasteur 150 years ago. Life from dead matter is simply impossible and quite idiotic to claim. It negates current knowledge about the complexity of software, information, code and inter-related functioning systems, calibrated to such an infinite degree of complexity, that believing you arose from bacteria, is akin to stating that your car was randomly produced. [see here for Evolution's frauds]

 

The other nonsense I love is 'Natural Selection' which is rhetoric signifying nothing. Selecting from what? How can I select from what is not present ? [see here for the necessity of morphological completeness]

 

For example, why would a reptile select to fly ? How does he know what flying is ? Who would he mate with ? How would his software change ? A reptile does not possess the DNA software code for wings, barbules, hooks, honeycombed bone structures, or the brain of a bird, not to mention its reproduction or complex organs. What is the point of half a wing ? He would die. No one has observed a reptilian scale changing into a feather. Since when is science about story telling and not factual observation ?

 

Natural selection is like abiogenesis – it is ridiculous and embarrassing. Darwin's cult usually maintains that it does not support abiogenesis. This is a lie. If you believe that all things form from naturalistic processes than logically, you support dead matter becoming alive. In fact the cult of Darwin chatters about 'energy', or heat vents in the ocean, being enough to produce the complexity of life. A single cell bacteria has at minimum 270 genes. The chance of one single gene forming by accident is less than zero. [see here]

 

A gene is but a fraction of what goes into a single cell. Darwin et al believed that cells were globules of jelly. Not much science there. A single cell is more complex than an urban center.

 

....the probability of building a 150 amino acids chain [average sized protein] in which all linkages are peptide linkages would be roughly 1 chance in 10^45. The second requirement is that functioning proteins tolerate only left-handed amino acids, yet in abiotic amino acid production the right-handed and left-handed isomers are produced in nearly the same frequency. The probability of building a 150-amino-acid chain at random in which all bonds are peptide bonds and all amino acids are L-form is roughly 1 chance in 10^90. The third requirement for functioning proteins is that the amino acids must link up like letters in a meaningful sentence, i.e. in a functionally specified sequential arrangement. The chance for this happening at random for a 150 amino acid chain is approximately 1 chance in 10^195. It would appear impossible for chance to build even one functional protein considering how small the likelihood is. By way of comparison to get a feeling of just how low this probability is consider that there are only 10^65 atoms in our galaxy...[link]

 

I have read elsewhere in the cult of Evolution's work, that the number of atoms in our galaxy might only be 10 to the power of 18. No matter. For a single average sized protein, there is a one chance in 10 to the power of 195, that it could happen. In other words, it didn't happen. This chance is far greater than all of the atoms in our galaxy. That is one protein. The human has 2 to 10 million. We can thus take the probability to another more impossible level, by calculating the chance that 2 million pieces of software functionality arose by random mutations.

 

Evolution is scientifically and mathematically impossible. Period.

[See Darwin's junk and bunk, here.]

 

 

Darwin's cult is mathematically impossible. It also offends basic science.

Fairy tales and impossible mathematics, do not a science make.

Bookmark and Share

 

Long age Evolutionists routinely ascribe the number of seconds since the beginning of the Universe to be 1018, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 namely a Quintillion, or roughly the total real debt levels of developed states. This number is so massive it is meaningless. Glib politicians blandly speak of a Trillion as a rounding error, in relation to a Quintillion it might well be. A trillion is 1 millionth the size of a Quintillion, but even a Trillion is incomprehensibly large. The number of seconds in the entire history of the universe, by Evolutionist's own calculations, is thus far beyond our imagination to comprehend. We can use that as a basis to eviscerate Darwin's cult.

 

Consider the probability that life came from nothing and self-assembled. It offends every scientific law imaginable, but consider just one simple example. If 1018 is unfathomable, what then of random chance, producing in a warm soupy pond, the complexity of just one protein ? Your body has between 2 million and 10 million – the actual number is unknown. In the Darwinian fairy-tale Evolutionists imagine that RNA magically formed first – how they never say – then somehow the RNA created the DNA which then gave rise to first single cells, and by magic over long time, multi-cells. It is of course impossible for RNA to create DNA. There is no laboratory or observational proof of such a concept. DNA controls RNA of course, not the reverse, but no matter. DNA and RNA are certainly a part of the puzzle, but proteins manufactured via Ribosomes which are issued blueprints by DNA via mRNA, are a greater mystery still.

 

How would a manufacturing process of DNA-RNA-Ribosomes and proteins self-organize and why?

 

The mathematical probability of one average 150 amino acid length protein, forming itself by chance in the exact perfect functioning order; is less than 1 in 10161 or much greater than all of the seconds available in the universe since the beginning of time. 10 to the power of 161 is not even calculable on a logarithmic scale. It is thus impossible. Even worse for the cult of Darwin, it has been calculated that the time needed to form just one average functioning protein in perfect conditions via chance and time, would take only 10171 years, or forever. In other words, it cannot happen.

 

Since mathematically the creation of one single protein is impossible, we can safely conclude that the entire Evolution myth, is unscientific. It is a faith. A cult. And its derivative Atheism informed both Nazism and Communism. Life is cheap if you believe that unknown forces are 'evolving' cells into ubermensch. The cult of science. More philosophy than reasonable inquiry. Mathematics disproves Darwin.