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
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.]