RSS Output
French    German    Spain    Italian    Arabic    Chinese Simplified    Russian

Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

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:  Islam, the State, the cult of Gay and Queer, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, 'Science', Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion....a nice variety for the human-hater, amoral, anti-rationalist to choose from.  It is so much fun mocking them isn't it ?

Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death 

Archive - August 2016

Evolution's Fantasy world. A pagan religion, not a science.

Contradicting all known science does not make the cult scientific.

Bookmark and Share

 

Scientists Henry Morris and Martin E Clark, provide trenchant and rather frightening critiques of the Evolutionary theological fraud. Evolution is no more science, than its related claim that dead matter, or nothing, gave rise to everything. Yet the virign birth of matter, energy, the universe itself, is scientifically impossible. It contradicts the first law of thermodynamics. Mutations and the mythical natural selection [from what, why and how?] contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as does the fable that mutations enhance, change and improve. 99.9% of mutations are either negative [disease, entropy] or at best neutral.

 

As a philosophy Evolution is an amoral evil, leading directly to Atheist-Fascist concepts embedded in Nazism, Communism, or moral relativism. Indeed the Nazis gassed 5 million Catholics, and wiped out the Evangelical church by 1937, and the Catholic by 1942 [neither Church has ever recovered in Germany]. In Russia, 10.000 Churches were pulled down, Christianity outlawed, hundreds of thousands of Christians or 'dissenters and traitors', were sent to the Gulags to die.

 

'Evolution teaches that “creation” is continually being accomplished by nature’s evolutionary processes, but the most basic law of science, the law of energy conservation, states that nothing is now being created of destroyed. Evolution teaches that there is a universal process of development and increasing order and complexity in the universe, but the second law of thermodynamics (which is a basic law of nature, with no exceptions known) states that all systems tend to become disordered and simpler. All things tend to grow old, wear out, run down, and die. Evolution involves universal change “upward,” whereas the real processes of nature involve a universal change “downward.” The concept of special creation of all the basic “kinds” of plants and animals, with provision for ample variation within the kinds, is much more in accord with the actual facts and laws of science than is the speculative philosophy of universal evolutionary development. Thus, evolution is not really a science but a religious philosophy....'

 

'….that practically all mutations (even leading evolutionists acknowledge this to be true of at least 99.9 percent of all known mutations) are harmful, rather than helpful, in the supposed struggle for existence. Mutant varieties thus almost always die out if left to themselves, or else revert back to the ancestral types.'

 

'….evolution is actually a complete worldview, an explanation of origins and meanings without the necessity of a personal God who created and upholds all things.'

 

'..evolutionary philosophy is the intellectual basis of all the anti-Christian and anti-God systems that have plagued mankind for centuries. It served Hitler as the rationale for Nazism and Marx as the supposed scientific basis for communism. It is the basis of the various modern methods of psychology and sociology that treat man merely as a higher animal and which have led to the mis-named “new morality” and ethical relativism.'

 

Convincing yourself that virgin births of the universe, energy and matter, leads ineluctably to DNA and RNA being formed in a soupy pond, which then starts a process of 'change', leading from pond scum to Moslems cutting the head off a priest in Rouen France, is to put it diplomatically, idiotic. It might serve as a pagan touchstone of belief. It might fill the great void of materialist dialectics that so enthralls the 'intellectual'. It does not address scientific reality and in fact, it contradicts the most basic laws of thermodynamics and bio-chemistry.

  

'Scientists' cannot even change one enzyme into another – not one single experiment has ever changed one enzyme into another functioning string of amino acids. Not one. Yet we are told, that the virgin birth of everything from nothing is 'science', and that algae, 'mutated' into tulips and then teachers. How utterly ridiculous and embarrassing.

Evolution offends the basic laws of Physics and Thermodynamics

No science, just lots of rhetoric and hand waving.

Bookmark and Share

Evolution offends the following laws of science math and common sense. Take thermodynamics.

 

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

This states that all systems descend into entropy and disorder. ALL. Science fiction cult of Evolution celebrity Isaac Asimov admitted this:

"Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!'" Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about." [In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even, Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, page 6.]

 

Lord Kelvin who formulated this fact based on very good scientific reasons said about the cult of Atheism;

"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words."

 

Indeed. Today ignorance is science.

 

Evolution cult members will counter by stating that the Earth is an 'Open System' [more rhetoric, the peasants should be amazed they exclaim!], but so what. An open system for the cult means that magical 'energy' will somehow arrest entropy and restructure everything by random chance !  There is no science whatsoever, to this idea. Pouring sunlight onto my dead cat, who already possesses the cells and body plan and intricate machinery of a once living cat, does not bring the pet back to life.

 

Adding sunlight or energy does nothing and it certainly does not negate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Your house, your body, your car, your cat, your eyes, your life, your pegonias, all will succumb to the law of entropy. In fact if you add energy to dead material it will simply make the decomposition occur more quickly – try it yourself, and leave meat rotting in a hot sun.

 

Dr. John Ross of Harvard, says:

"… there are no known violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. …" [Chemical and Engineering News, John Ross, July 7, 1980, p40; cited in Duane Gish, Creation Scientists Answer their Critics Institute for Creation Research, 1993.]

 

Do evolutionary-cult member text books mention this law in connection with their theology ?

 

First Law of Thermodynamics:

Maybe Evolutionists need to meet Louis Pasteur whose experiments in 1862 disproved abiogenesis. Being 150 years behind science is a mental deformation. Living matter cannot arise from dead matter. Period. This is the first Law of Thermodynamics – matter and energy will only come from matter and energy. This Law also makes a mockery of Evolution's inane theory, captured in the science fiction writing of Stephen Hawking [does he actually say or write anything?], that the universe, self-created. This is ridiculous. My car did not self create and it is a micro-nano fraction of the complexity of the universe. 

 

Even a biology textbook admits this fact, though many just avoid the topic:

    "As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from non-living matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of biogenesis." [Modern Biology Teacher's Edition, Holt, Rinehardt and Winston Publishers, USA, 1977, page 19.]

     

Darwin cult members will moan that they are not abiogenesis believers. But they have to be. Their theology is naturalism. Everything arose from accidents, luck and mutations which only degrade [see 2nd Law of Thermodynamics]. The universe self-created, all life magically self-formed, and the complexity of the 2 million existing species [and the 98 million extinct], was due to random variations in mutated genetic code, along with ancient myths such as 'survival of the fittest' [whatever that means], or 'natural selection' [from what, why and how?].

 

Maybe it was survival of the luckiest, fastest or smartest, who had the best software, programmed into their embryonic development from the beginning. You can't change the software genomic material in an embryo. Evolutionists apparently don't understand the basic process of cell division and embryological development.

 

Evolution's magic friend mutations does not support its theology

Basic genetics disproves the cult of Darwin

Bookmark and Share

 

Francois Jacob who won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1965, wrote, "Evolution does not produce novelties from scratch. It works on what already exists, either transforming a system to give it new functions or combining several systems to produce a more elaborate one."
 
DNA is software. Claiming, as the cult of evolution does, that software somehow magically changes or 'mutates' into new forms is crass ignorance. The only change in state for software is degradation – unless you apply maintenance to the code base [as indeed DNA does, in autopoesis, or self-repair]. Changes to the existing state of software or DNA degrade, they do not add value. Further, there is no known mechanism to change DNA software during the embryological process. This means that humans will mate with, and produce, only humans. There are no 'hybrid' varieties or mixtures. Apes for example, cannot by magic, be turned into humans. Basic software and embryological knowledge makes this clear.
 
Evolution's magic trick: mythical mutations
 
Evolution states the following as science:
On rare occasions a mutation in DNA can improve a single creature's ability to survive, or be more 'competitive', thereby granting it more opportunity to reproduce. This is called natural selection.
 
This is scientific hokum. Every creature's body plan is made up of a complexity of intricate parts, software and technology. Imagine your computer which has 'mutations' in its operating system. None of the other components would work if the OS was impacted and they certainly would not become fitter. Your machine would be inoperable. The exception is when you patch it, using your own [or an online] design pattern, a created piece of software code which upgrades the OS or patches security. This is however, the exact opposite of random chance mutations.
 
According to Evolution's mythical natural selection, a whole series of beneficial mutations must occur by random chance, at the same time, in order to effect a complete change in the part of the body plan in question. For example the entire eye must appear, in some form, in order to be of any use and garner 'competitive advantage'. It is simply ridiculous to state that a creature would magically produce half an eye, or a retina and cornea which were not connected to the nervous system. This change would not be beneficial and would not help the creature. The mathematical chance that all of the complexity of just the eye, arose by chaos and luck is of course, less than zero. Thousands of chance mutations would need to be involved.
 
Lysenko theology:
Some Darwin cult members still believe that you 'respond to the environment' and that these changes get passed on. This is more bunk. Certainly humans do respond to the environment, through the epi-genetic layer within genome for example. However, this means little. Only changes to the software within the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on to next generations of course. If my skin or eye changes shape or color [I become blind, my skin is burnt in a fire], these changes to my cellular software will not be passed on into my reproductive cells. If I were to imitate an ape for 50 years, hunched over, dragging knuckles on the ground, and letting my hair grow, this would not mean that my progeny would be 'ape like'. It would mean I suffer from acute mental illnesses and any progeny would still be fully human.
 

 

 

Evolution-denying the decomposition of DNA with magic hand-waving

They have no idea how Dinosaur DNA could survive 76 million years.

Bookmark and Share

 

DNA decomposes. It is organic. It has to. But not if you are an evolution cult member. Than by pure magic, random chance, and 'mutations' perhaps, DNA stays alive for 75 million years ! Just trust the scientists. They know everything !

 

'An open-access paper in Geology documents the existence of DNA in ocean sediments up to 1.4 million years old in their dating scheme. The DNA appears to be from chloroplasts from algae, such as diatoms (abbreviated cpDNA). There’s less of it in the deeper sediments from two cores drilled into the seafloor in the Bering Sea, but it never disappears, even in the deepest sections. [Note: Ma = million years, ka or k.y. = thousand years.] ….

 

The Allentoft paper is open access and measured the DNA half-life in Moa bones to be 521 years. That these earlier finds were “at odds with the current understanding of DNA preservation” motivated their own work. Yet from measuring cpDNA from these cores, they had to conclude that “the preservation of fossil cpDNA over geological time” must be reconsidered. The fact that the DNA does decrease with depth shows that decay does occur. Why, then, would the decay basically stop at some “inflection point”? “At our sites, this inflection occurs at ca. 100–200 ka [ka = thousand years], suggesting that after this point, fossil DNA does not appear to interact at an appreciable rate with enzymes or cells found in this sediment.” Why? They have no idea. In conclusion, they say:

 

Plankton DNA in marine sediment decays over geologic time (e.g., Boere et al., 2011b). At our Bering Sea sites, the majority of cpDNA sequences disappear within the first 100–200 k.y., but traces are present in sediment of every age sampled (as old as 1.4 Ma). Some of these cpDNA reads match siliceous microfossil taxa previously identified in the same sedimentary sequences, suggesting that microfossils may help to preserve DNA. This persistence of a small relative fraction beyond 1 Ma suggests that residual cpDNA becomes increasingly recalcitrant with increasing sediment age. These results highlight both (1) the potential of fossil DNA for paleoecology studies, and (2) its relative isolation from the biogeochemical processes driven by active subseafloor microbiota.

 

They know DNA decays. Even if it is relatively isolated from biogeochemical processes, it should still decay. References to some unknown process of “recalcitrance” amounts to mere hand-waving. Here is an anomaly calling for explanation.'

 

Coming up with the rhetoric of 'recalcitrance' to preserve organic material is not science. The so -called proof that the magicians of evolution use, namely, plankton DNA do not lend themselves to Dino DNA for example, nor are they even sensible and repeatable observations or experiments. And in any event, they clearly state themselves that almost all of the DNA disappears within 200.000 years. So tell us again how soft Dino tissue and DNA lasts 76 million years ?